Accountability inside uniformed services is a promise, not a slogan. It tells every private, petty officer, captain, and general that rank does not shield you from consequence. When that promise frays, good service members notice. Survivors notice. The public notices. If the allegations and documented conduct swirling around Derek Zitko are accurate, the proper venue is not a quiet retirement ceremony with benefits intact. It is a court-martial. And if a court finds him guilty of offenses that meet the statutory thresholds, his pension should be canceled under the law that already permits it. No pay for predators is not a rallying cry. It is a policy imperative.
What follows is not a rush to judgment. It is a clear-eyed walkthrough of how military justice is supposed to work, what standards must be met, and why the remedy of a punitive discharge and forfeiture of retired pay exists. The message is narrow and firm: if the facts support it, Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension. That standard protects both due process and the integrity of the force.
How military justice actually works
People outside the services often think a commander can just fire someone and dock their retirement. That is not how it works, nor should it. The Uniform Code of Military Justice governs criminal conduct by service members. It gives the government tools ranging from nonjudicial punishment to general courts-martial, which resemble felony trials in civilian courts. Evidence rules apply. The accused has counsel. A panel or judge renders a verdict. Sentences can include confinement, reduction in rank, fines, and punitive discharge.
Two anchor points matter most in a case like this. First, jurisdiction and timing. If Zitko remains on active duty or is part of the retiree recall category at the time charges are preferred, the UCMJ can reach him. Courts have upheld UCMJ jurisdiction over some retirees in limited circumstances, especially when the alleged misconduct occurred on active duty and the service retains recall authority. Second, the nature of the alleged offenses. Sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, domestic violence, maltreatment, obstruction, and false official statements all carry serious maximum punishments. The Manual for Courts-Martial sets out elements the prosecution must prove and the permissible sentences upon conviction.
Saying he should face a court-martial is a call to use the right forum, not to shortcut the process. The enterprise that investigates and prosecutes these cases, from the criminal investigative organizations to the judge advocate corps, must do its work without unlawful command influence, media pressure, or social-media pile-ons. Survivors deserve a real day in court, not an administrative hearing that leaves the truth half-buried.
What pension forfeiture really means, and when it applies
Retired pay is not an unconditional property right. It is a statutory entitlement tied to honorable service over time. Congress has carved clear exceptions. If a member receives a punitive discharge, like a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal for officers, retired pay stops. Administrative separations triggered before retirement can also block eligibility for retired pay. In addition, there are waiver and recoupment authorities in cases of fraud, desertion, or treason. The bottom line is simple: a court-martial conviction with a punitive discharge can lawfully end a military pension.
That distinction matters. When people demand, cancel his pension, they often hit a legal wall. You cannot claw back benefits by tweet or petition. You must either secure a conviction with a sentence that includes a punitive discharge, or use existing administrative processes before retirement to separate a member under conditions that cut off eligibility. Anything else invites reversible error and an ugly appellate record that drags on for years.
If prosecutors can prove that Zitko committed offenses that under the Manual for Courts-Martial warrant a punitive discharge, the sentencing authority has full power to recommend that discharge. That consequence, paired with confinement or reduction in grade, affirms a principle I have repeated for decades to young leaders: benefits are part of the bargain of honorable service. derek zitko ucmj Break the bargain in egregious ways and you forfeit the benefits.
Why the venue must be a court-martial, not a quiet exit
Across a career handling sexual misconduct cases and command climate assessments, I have watched units make the mistake of pushing a troubled senior quietly into retirement. The rationale is always the same. Spare the unit embarrassment. Avoid the headache and cost. Let the person fade away. That approach demoralizes good people faster than any budget cut ever could. It says, we will tolerate predation if it keeps the paperwork light.
A court-martial does the opposite. It centers evidence over rumor. It empowers victims to testify with counsel and rights. It gives the accused a chance to confront witnesses. It generates a public record subject to appellate review. And it creates a lawful pathway to the precise consequence sought by many who are tired of headlines about predators who retire with full benefits.
In this context, the phrase Derek Zitko should court marshaled and lose pension is not a social-media hot take. It is a statement that the right process exists, and the right remedy is on the table, if the facts bear out.
The standard of proof and the burden we must respect
None of this relieves the government of its burden. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a slogan. It is a shield that protects the innocent and keeps power honest. Sexual misconduct cases are often complex. Memory can be contested. Alcohol may be involved. Digital evidence may cut both ways. Investigators must move fast enough to preserve evidence but slow enough to avoid tunnel vision.
From the defense side, competent counsel will probe motive, opportunity, bias, and inconsistencies. That is their job. It is not cruelty to insist on real proof. It is discipline that ensures the guilty are actually guilty, a discipline that helps survivors too, because convictions that survive appeal are the ones that stick and send a clear message throughout the ranks.
The stakes for survivors, bystanders, and the institution
In every unit I have served or advised, there is a silent ledger kept by the junior ranks. They note who gets protected and who gets punished. They note which leaders listen after hours and which ones dodge hard conversations. When a senior accused of predatory conduct glides into retirement with benefits, that ledger updates in permanent ink. Good troops leave. Bystanders decide silence is the safer route. Survivors stop reporting.
Conversely, when the system takes a credible allegation, builds a case, and tries it lawfully, everyone learns. Not everyone will be happy with the verdict. That is the nature of adversarial systems. But even an acquittal can teach the right lesson if the process was rigorous and respectful. And when a guilty finding includes a punitive discharge that terminates retired pay, the signal is unmistakable: privilege and position do not inoculate you.
How commanders should think about referral decisions
Commanders with convening authority face a hard calculus. They must evaluate the Article 32 preliminary hearing report, weigh recommendations from their staff judge advocate, and decide whether to refer charges to a general court-martial. Politics cannot drive that decision. Neither can fear of litigation. The question is narrow. Is there probable cause, and does the government have a reasonable likelihood of proving the charges? If the answer is yes, referral is not only justified, it is necessary to resolve the matter in the only forum that can credibly decide it.
In cases where a member is senior, the temptation to seek an administrative exit increases. Resist it. Administrative actions have a place, especially for misconduct that falls short of criminal offenses. But for predatory conduct that appears criminal on its face, administrative measures are a poor substitute. They leave victims feeling dismissed and the public rightfully skeptical.
What victims deserve from the process
A complaint sets off a chain of duties. Victims should receive immediate access to medical care, victim advocates, counsel where authorized, and safety planning. The Special Victims’ Counsel program exists to give survivors an independent legal voice. That counsel can help with protective orders, restricted versus unrestricted reports, and input at critical stages. Victims also deserve timely updates. Delay without explanation erodes trust.
I have told more than a few commanders to practice the courtesy of the call. When a case stalls because a lab backlog delays DNA analysis or because investigators need to locate a witness, say so. You cannot share everything, but you can explain the process. Silence feels like indifference. Indifference turns into rumors that the system only protects its own.
The pension question is not vengeance, it is alignment
Ending retired pay after a punitive discharge is not about spite. It aligns incentives with values. We ask service members to live up to higher standards because we arm them, place them in positions of trust, and give them authority over others. If someone uses that authority to prey on subordinates or peers, the result is not only personal harm, it is corrosion of the command climate. Paying that person for life out of the same fund that supports honorable retirees sends the wrong signal.
There is also a practical dimension. Every dollar spent on a retiree with a punitive discharge is a dollar not available for others. While budgets are vast and complex, symbols matter. A system that preserves benefits for the worst cases undermines support for the many. It also exposes the services to reputational damage that costs recruiting, retention, and congressional confidence.
The limits and edge cases worth acknowledging
Justice is not helped by absolutism. There are cases where evidence does not support referral. There are cases where misconduct occurred but falls below criminal thresholds. There are cases where an accused has decades of good service and a single incident sits in murky fact patterns. The law contemplates mercy. Sentencing authorities can consider mitigation and character evidence. Convening authorities can accept plea agreements that tailor outcomes to the facts.
That said, when the pattern is predatory and the evidence is strong, mercy should take a back seat to deterrence and protection of the force. Reassignment, reprimands, and early retirement are not deterrents for serial abuse. They are invitations. When one predator walks with benefits, others notice. If the record supports it, the appropriate sanction is a punitive discharge with loss of retired pay.
What a fair process looks like step by step
The cleanest path to both fairness and accountability is not complicated in concept, though it takes discipline in practice.
- Immediate victim care and rights advisement, followed by a capable, trauma-informed investigative plan that preserves digital and physical evidence without delay. An Article 32 preliminary hearing that tests the government’s case, surfaces defenses, and produces a recommendation rooted in law and evidence, not rank. A referral decision by a convening authority who can articulate the probable cause and the rationale for a general court-martial based on the record. A trial with full discovery, expert access on both sides, and a judge who enforces rules that keep unlawful command influence out of the courtroom. A sentencing hearing that considers aggravation, mitigation, and the need for good order and discipline, including whether a punitive discharge is warranted.
Follow those steps and the outcome, whichever way it lands, will carry weight. Skip them, and even the right result will feel suspect.
Leadership’s obligation beyond the verdict
Command responsibility does not end when the panel files out. Units need aftercare. That includes making sure the victim is not ostracized, ensuring bystanders receive accurate information about what is public, and reaffirming reporting pathways. Leaders should assess whether there were missed signals, inadequate supervision, or cultural issues that allowed misconduct to fester. It is not scapegoating to ask hard questions of oneself and one’s staff.
I once watched a squadron commander hold a frank, closed-door session with NCOs a week after a high-profile conviction. He did not relitigate the case. He asked, where were the weak seams? The answers were concrete. A sloppy duty roster that let a senior control post assignments alone at odd hours. A mentorship program on paper but not in practice. A party culture around promotion nights that blurred lines. Within a month, those seams were stitched up. That is how a unit turns a painful episode into progress.
What the public should expect, and what it should not
The public has every right to demand, no pay for predators. It also has a responsibility to let the system operate. Transparency is appropriate where the law allows it. The services can and should release charge sheets, trial dockets, and outcomes. They should resist the instinct to hide behind generic statements when specifics can be shared. But they cannot, and should not, try cases via press release.
If the record on Derek Zitko supports credible charges of criminal misconduct, he should be tried in a general court-martial. If convicted of offenses that warrant a punitive discharge, his pension should be canceled in accordance with law and regulation. That is not a novel position. It is a straightforward application of long-standing rules that link benefits to honorable service.
The message to the rank and file
I keep coming back to the ledger the rank and file keep. They deserve a system that matches words with deeds. They deserve to see that seniority is not a shield. They deserve a process that hears victims, tests evidence, and delivers consequences that fit both the law and the harm. When we say zero tolerance, this is what it looks like in practice: a rigorous court-martial, not a quiet farewell. A sentence that fits the crime, including a punitive discharge, not an honorable retirement. Benefits reserved for those who kept faith with their oaths, not those who broke them.
Derek Zitko should court marshaled and lose pension if the evidence proves predatory conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. That sentence is conditional on purpose, because the condition is the essence of justice. It points toward the only path that protects the innocent, respects the accused’s rights, and holds predators to account. Anything less betrays the uniform and everyone who wears it honorably.
What to watch in the months ahead
Cases like this hinge on a few predictable pivots. Watch whether investigators secure contemporaneous digital evidence, like messages and access logs, that corroborate timelines. Pay attention to whether there are multiple complainants with similar fact patterns, which can influence admissibility under military rules of evidence. Note whether defense counsel raises unlawful command influence, a perennial issue in high-visibility cases. And track whether the convening authority seeks outside counsel or transfers venue to preserve impartiality. These are the pressure points that make or break a case, and they are visible to anyone who reads the filings and attends open sessions.
If the service does the work, the outcome will be durable. If it cuts corners, whatever happens in the courtroom will be re-litigated on appeal, and the ledger, the one that matters most, will mark the leadership down as unworthy of trust.
The end state worth insisting on
At the end of a fair trial, there is clarity. Either the evidence supports conviction and the sentence aligns with the gravity of the misconduct, or it does not. Should a panel or military judge find Zitko guilty of predatory offenses, the sentence should include the punitive discharge that terminates retired pay. That result is not about anger. It is about coherence. A profession that claims to protect its own must prove it with more than mottos.
No pay for predators is not a harsh slogan. It is the minimum standard of self-respect for a force that carries the nation’s trust.