Continued Service
Disclaimer: This blog reflects my personal views, informed by over three decades of military service, and is written in a private capacity. It does not speak for the Department of Defense, the United States Army, or any serving military leaders or institutions.
What has been echoed in the news and social media is these people who made the video have First Amendment rights. Or, ‘He or she is a retired officer—why does it matter what they say?’ Or the final one that I have heard a lot is how does the Department of Defense—sometimes referred to as the ‘Department of War’—have any say over a retired officer?
After serving over 38 years in the U.S. Army both as enlisted and as an officer I can fully understand why some military personnel may be confused let alone the civilian population. We are going to narrow our focus to retirees—specifically retired officers.
Retirement Confusion: I believe the confusion comes with the understanding of retirement. In the civilian world, retirement means you leave the company, keep your pension, and owe nothing further. That is not how military retirement works—particularly for commissioned officers. A retired officer is not “used to be” an officer. They are an officer—on the retired list. A retired military officer is not the same as a retired civilian executive; retirement in the military is a change of status, not an exit from the profession. Retired officers are considered to still hold office under the United States. Officers take an Oath of Office not an Oath of Enlistment.
Let's compare the civilian retirement verses a military retirement.
Civilian Retirement
Ends employment
Ends authority
Ends accountability
Pension is deferred compensation for past work
Military Officer Retirement
Ends daily service
Does not end commission
Does not end legal status
Retired pay is compensation tied to continued status
Considering the fourth point of each one. Civilian retirement is compensating for work done for a length of time, typically 20 or more years. Military retirement pay is considered legally reduced compensation for continued service, not a pension as the civilian retiree receives.
Under Title 10, U.S. Code, retired officers are still part of the Armed Forces. They are subject to recall to active duty (rare, but legally real). There are documented cases of retired general officers being recalled to active duty for specific roles or responsibilities. Officers may be assigned duties appropriate to their status. This is why officers are often described as “never fully retired” in a legal sense. It is the difference between being retired and being on the retired rolls. Just as we are accounted for while actively serving we are still being accounted for, we remain accounted for by the government—carried on the retired rolls.
Some would say what about the retired enlisted personnel? Do they have the same restraints as an officer? The answer to this is yes and no. The reality of the situation is retired enlisted have less restrictions then a retired officer. This is because of a few differences between the retired officer and retired enlisted. The Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) is retired enlisted personnel return fully to civilian life; retired officers remain tethered to the profession—by law, by expectation, and by conscience.
Enlisted service is contractual, while officer service is vocational and commissioned. This commission carries continuing institutional responsibility. The law treats officers differently because the nation entrusts them not just with task, but with the profession itself.
Retirement and UCMJ: An emotional and confusing topic is concerning the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ applies to certain categories of military personnel. One of those categories includes retired officers. The purpose of the UCMJ is to preserve good order and discipline, trust in the profession and accountability tied to holding a commission.
Being subject to the UCMJ for a retiree does not mean they are policed (accounted for) daily. It does not mean they can't disagree with government policies. It does mean the conduct that brings discredit, typically classified as grave discredit can still trigger accountability. Think less former employee and more retired judge that still holds the title.
Both retired officers—and in limited and contested ways, retired enlisted members—fall under Article 2 of the UCMJ. However, how that authority is viewed and applied differs sharply. While both groups fall under military law in limited ways, their treatment differs in practice. The following chart is an illustration of the differences.
| Factor | Retired Officer | Retired Enlisted |
|---|---|---|
| UCMJ jurisdiction | Clear and well-established | More contested |
| Historical prosecutions | Yes (rare but real) | Extremely rare |
| Likelihood of recall for discipline | Low | Very low |
| Institutional interest | Higher | Lower |
Conclusion: Many retired officers believe that because they are no longer on active duty, they are no longer bound by anything but conscience and law like any other citizen. This belief is understandable - but incomplete. As a retired officer one must remember rank still communicates authority. A retired officer's speech still carries institutional weight. Finally retirement restores freedom, but not anonymity.
The military's expectation of officers does not change at retirement. This framework exists not to silence retired officers, but to remind them that their words still matter—sometimes more than they realize. With freedom comes influence. With influence comes responsibility. This helps explain why statements like those currently in the news receive heightened scrutiny. The higher the rank you retire at the more responsibilities you still hold. This framework exists not to silence retired officers, but to remind them that their words still matter—sometimes more than they realize.
Additional Information: The following is provided for greater depth of the differences between retired officers and retired enlisted.
Retired Officers
Remain commissioned officers (commission persists)
Are placed on the Retired List
Are considered to hold office under the United States
- Retired pay is legally viewed as reduced compensation for continued availability
- Regain First Amendment rights
Must avoid:
Implying official military endorsement
Using rank to suggest authority
Speech that brings discredit on the Armed Forces
Public commentary is scrutinized more closely
- Uphold institutional dignity
- Speak carefully in public forums
- Represent the profession honorably
- Accept ongoing moral accountability
Retired Enlisted Personnel
- Their continued service status is limited
- Are also placed on a Retired List
Do not hold a commission (No concept of holding an “office” after retirement)
Retired pay is treated more like a statutory retirement benefit
- Regain full civilian political rights
- Fewer institutional expectations
- Rarely expected to issue disclaimers
- Use of former rank carries little risk unless fraudulent
Live as private citizens
Be honored for service
Carry no institutional voice obligation







