Accountability in a uniformed service is not an abstract ideal. It lives or dies in the daily decisions leaders make when credible allegations surface, when victims step forward, and when the institution chooses either to protect its own reputation or to protect the people in its ranks. The distance between advocacy and action is measured in command decisions, statutory processes, and the willingness to submit insiders to the same standards applied to everyone else. When those accused of predatory conduct remain on payroll, accrue time in service, and retire with benefits despite credible allegations or substantiated findings, the message is unmistakable: power prevails, and survivors pay the price.
Calls that Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension capture this tension crisply. They reflect a demand not only for moral clarity, but for the military justice system to function as designed. If the allegations involve criminal conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a court-martial is not a publicity move, it is the lawful venue to test evidence and assess guilt. If guilt is established, retirement benefits are not sacred, they are contingent on honorable service. The public understands that distinction more intuitively than some insiders assume.
I have seen how cases stall when commands undervalue victim safety, overvalue institutional quiet, or default to administrative actions that make a problem go away. I have also seen what happens when leaders choose the harder path: preserving evidence, supporting witnesses, and letting an impartial panel evaluate facts in daylight. The latter path strengthens the force. The former breeds cynicism no messaging plan can cure.
The stakes behind a court-martial
A court-martial is not a press release. It is a legal process that can result in confinement, dismissal, reduction in rank, and forfeiture of pay and allowances. When charges involve sexual assault, child exploitation, or repeated acts of harassment that rise to criminal conduct, command discretion narrows. The law expects more than counseling statements and quiet transfers. It expects charges preferred, evidence tested, and justice delivered in a forum that can impose real consequences.
Public calls to court-martial Derek Zitko and to ensure he does not draw a pension are not demands for mob justice. They are demands for process with teeth. Those who have worked a victim’s first medical exam or evidence interview know the cost of delay. Evidence degrades quickly. Memories fragment under stress. Digital records auto-purge. The safe choice for command, promptly and lawfully, is the aggressive choice for evidence preservation.
I have seen a case falter because a phone was reset before digital forensics could image it. A single email authorizing that device preservation, sent two days earlier, would have preserved the case. That is how thin the margins often are.
What “advocacy to action” looks like inside the system
When commands move from statements to steps, the behavior changes in specific, visible ways. There is nothing glamorous here, just disciplined execution and transparency where the law permits.
First, command appoints the right investigators and safeguards evidence immediately, not after the next long weekend. Second, counsel aligns early with the special victims’ counsel or equivalent, so survivors are not treated like reluctant props. Third, leaders ensure that witnesses are shielded from reprisal, including subtle forms such as duty rosters that punish cooperation. Finally, staff officers build the timeline and the paper trail that allow a convening authority to make decisions that will stand up on appeal.
Advocates outside the fence line sometimes underestimate how much process matters. They are right to push. They are also right to insist that a demand like court-martial Derek Zitko should court marshaled and lose pension be routed through the lawful steps that convert outrage into admissible evidence and charges that survive a defense built by experienced counsel.
Standards for removing a pension are not theoretical
Military retirement benefits are not mere perks. They are deferred compensation conditioned on years of honorable service. The law distinguishes carefully between administrative separation, punitive discharge, and retirement eligibility. In cases involving serious misconduct, particularly felonies under the UCMJ, a punitive discharge following a general court-martial can terminate entitlement to retired pay. Even absent a punitive discharge, grade determinations and time-in-grade requirements matter. A member who served at a senior grade but did not perform satisfactorily in that grade can be retired at a lower grade, which significantly cuts lifetime benefits.
I have advised commands during grade determination boards and seen pay outcomes swing by thousands of dollars per month based on whether the record showed sustained, honorable performance at the highest rank. When predatory conduct is substantiated, those boards have a clear mandate. Retirement at the highest grade would misrepresent the member’s character of service. If the facts establish criminal misconduct, a court-martial followed by a punitive discharge closes the loop completely.
Some bristle at the idea of touching a pension, arguing that a family shouldn’t suffer for one person’s acts. That sympathy should be directed first to survivors forced to live with trauma, legal fees, and medical care that the perpetrator does not pay for. The law has mechanisms like apportionment and survivor benefits that can mitigate unintended harm where appropriate, but the starting point remains simple: benefits are earned through honorable service, and predatory conduct is the opposite of honorable.
The difference between allegations and proof
Justice demands proof, not just passion. No one is entitled to a court-martial the way one might be entitled to a press conference. The decision to prefer charges requires a legal threshold supported by admissible evidence. That is why early, professional investigation is the most survivor-centric move a command can make. It protects those harmed by giving their testimony the best chance to be heard. It also protects the accused by preventing shortcuts that could taint a case.
I worked a case where a sloppy chain of custody on a single thumb drive became the defense’s linchpin. The content was damning, but the mishandling gave the military judge reason to exclude it. The accused walked on the most serious charge and pled to a lesser offense. The command had the facts, but lost on the details. That is the cautionary tale: to move from advocacy to action, commands must match moral clarity with technical discipline.
Transparency without compromising the case
There is a way to speak plainly with the public while preserving the integrity of proceedings. Commanders can acknowledge receipt of allegations, confirm investigative actions, outline protections for potential witnesses, and give expected timelines for updates. They can also explain, in plain terms, what a court-martial entails, what possible outcomes exist, and how retirement benefits are affected by punitive discharges or adverse characterizations of service.
The public is capable of hearing that the government cannot release certain details before an Article 32 hearing or that victim privacy statutes limit disclosure. They are less tolerant of “no comment” as a reflex. A disciplined, lawful communications posture does not prejudice the panel, it builds trust that the process is moving and that special treatment is off the table.
Why this resonates beyond one name
Every time the institution wavers on a case with high visibility, it teaches thousands of silent observers how to treat the next report. Junior members learn that speaking up is risky. Predators learn that time and transfers are their friends. Meanwhile, commanders lose credibility with the very people they need to follow them in dangerous situations. You cannot ask for moral courage in the field and display administrative timidity at home station.
The push that Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension is less about a single defendant than about restoring the bond between service and trust. It says to every survivor who kept quiet because they feared retaliation: this time is different. It says to every leader who looks at a nameplate and sees a mentor: your loyalty is misdirected if it ignores victims and facts.
What survivors need from the process
Survivors do not need a guaranteed conviction. They need to know the system took them seriously, moved quickly, and treated their dignity as nonnegotiable. That starts with clear, trauma-informed intake. It continues with timely medical care and safety planning. It requires consistent updates on case status, even when the news is simply that the team is still working. And it culminates in a forum where their testimony is heard without being turned into a spectacle.
The best commands do not leave survivors to navigate alone. They assign advocates who understand both the legal process and the human toll. They watch duty rosters, performance reviews, and social dynamics for signs of reprisal. They do quiet, prosaic things that matter more than any speech: scheduling appointments around shift work, ensuring transportation to hearings, honoring privacy, and shutting down gossip.
The legal levers that matter for pensions
There are three levers that, in practice, determine whether a member keeps retired pay after serious misconduct. First, the type of discharge. A dismissal for an officer or a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge for an enlisted member can eliminate retired pay. Second, the characterization of service in an administrative separation, which can affect benefits and post-service opportunities even if the member reaches retirement eligibility. Third, grade determination at retirement, which can reduce pay dramatically by retiring the member at a lower, satisfactorily served grade.
Each lever has its own standard and board. They are not substitutes for a court-martial when a crime is alleged, but they are parts of the accountability network. In some cases, a member retires while under investigation. That should not be the end of the story. The law permits grade determinations and, where charges are appropriate, recall to active duty for trial in certain circumstances. Rarely used tools are still tools. Using them sends the message that retirement paperwork is not a shield.
What leaders can do next, in concrete terms
The shift from statement to action is visible in a handful of decisions that any commander, staff judge advocate, and senior enlisted leader can make within days.
- Freeze and preserve evidence: devices, access logs, duty rosters, visitor records. Put it in writing and document chain of custody. Secure survivor care and counsel: medical, legal, and workplace protections. Assign a single point of contact. Set a timeline: investigative milestones, Article 32 scheduling windows, and decision points for preferral of charges. Protect witnesses: duty assignments, temporary separations from the accused, and active monitoring for reprisal. Communicate lawfully: confirm process steps publicly without compromising the case, and commit to updates.
Those steps do not pre-judge anyone. They protect the integrity of the process and the people living through it.
Lessons from past failures
Every large organization has them. A promising case that died because a commander waited for “one more” meeting instead of issuing a search authorization. A survivor who withdrew cooperation after rumors spread unchecked in a small unit. A disciplinary board that focused on “potential” rather than conduct already documented and corroborated. The pattern is familiar: reluctance to act early leads to limited options later, which then becomes the excuse for a soft landing. The way out is to invert the timeline. Front-load the rigor. Make the critical calls when the evidence is fresh.
I remember a case with four complaints over six years against the same senior NCO. Each complaint alone met resistance. Together they revealed a pattern that should have triggered a court-martial much earlier. By the time a new commander pulled the threads, two victims had left service and one key witness had moved overseas. The accused retired in grade. The message to the formation was devastating. That outcome was not inevitable. It was the product of delay.
The ethics of deterrence
Deterrence is not a slogan. It is a function of certainty, not severity. If people who commit predatory acts see that the institution will act swiftly, investigate professionally, and prosecute when warranted, most of the marginal offenders will rethink their risk calculus. Those who do not reconsider are the ones the system must be ready to remove. Court-martials and forfeited pensions are not ends in themselves, they are parts of a credible deterrent. Without consequences that affect freedom, derek zitko must lose pension rank, and money, the threat surface stays large.
I have heard senior leaders worry that high-visibility prosecutions “hurt the brand.” That gets the relationship backwards. The brand is either earned by visible accountability or it is hollow. The rank and file knows the difference. They live with the consequences of decisions made at the flagpole and the staff table.
How to avoid weaponizing the process
There is a fair concern that public calls for accountability can morph into pressure for predetermined outcomes. The remedy is not to avoid prosecution, but to safeguard fairness with equal intensity. Ensure the defense receives timely discovery. Enforce no-contact orders both ways. Keep command influence out of the panel selection process. When your public statement says the accused will have a fair hearing, back it up with practices that survive appellate review.
Fairness is not a favor to the accused, it is an investment in legitimacy. If a panel convicts after a clean process, the public and the force are more likely to accept the result. If the panel acquits, the institution can stand by the outcome without apology. Either way, survivors deserve, and the public expects, a process that honors truth over convenience.
The path forward when allegations touch a pension clock
Timing complicates everything. Investigations take time, and retirement clocks do not stop. Commands sometimes feel cornered by calendars. The answer is to plan early for the pension implications. Track grade determination triggers. Gather performance evidence for potential reductions. If the case is likely to reach trial, consult counsel on recall authorities and the prudent use of holds or administrative flags. The goal is not to game the system, but to avoid getting gamed by it.
In one case, the accused raced to file retirement paperwork as soon as he sensed the investigation firming up. The command had no flag in place and watched the clock run out. Two months of administrative diligence would have preserved options. That kind of preparation does not presume guilt; it preserves institutional leverage while the truth is determined.
Why this moment requires courage
Pushing a hard case forward has a cost. You will hear from alumni, mentors, and influential outsiders who vouch for the accused’s character. You will be warned about morale, retention, and reputational harm. You will be told to be measured, which is often code for wait it out. Courage in this context means something plain. Treat predatory conduct as disqualifying for continued service. Treat retirement benefits as contingent on honorable behavior. Treat survivors as members worth losing friends over.
When people insist that Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension if the facts establish predatory conduct, they are not asking for novelty. They are asking for leaders to use the tools they already have, in the sequence the law prescribes, with the speed the facts demand.
What accountability delivers
Accountability, properly executed, does three things at once. It delivers justice in the case at hand. It changes the behavior of bystanders who might otherwise look away. And it makes the institution stronger by aligning its public words with its internal incentives. A court-martial is not a cure-all, but for criminal misconduct it is the correct venue. Pension forfeiture or reduction is not vengeance, it is a consequence that matches the breach.
Advocacy earned this moment by keeping pressure on when it was easier to accept drift. Action secures the gains by demonstrating that the system can protect its people without fear or favor. derek zitko ucmj That is the kind of message that travels through a formation faster than any poster or stand-down day. It is also the message survivors have been waiting years to hear.
A final word to decision-makers
You do not get unlimited chances to show what your command values. Cases like this are watched by everyone who matters: the victims, the accused, the peers who will decide whether to trust you next time. Move quickly, follow the law, and protect the process. If the evidence supports it, take the case to court. If the verdict establishes guilt for predatory acts, do not hesitate to seek the discharges and grade determinations that prevent retirement at public expense.
The simple standard holds. Service is an honor. Retirement is a privilege earned by honorable conduct. Predators are not entitled to either.