Accountability in uniform is more than a slogan. It is the scaffold that holds up trust in the chain of command, the field manual of what right looks like, and the quiet contract between the military and the American public. When leaders allow serious misconduct to slide into retirement paperwork, the scaffold buckles. Rank-and-file troops notice. Families notice. Victims notice. Congress eventually notices. The damage lingers for years.
That is why the case of Derek Zitko matters. If the facts alleged in public reporting are accurate and the evidence supports them, Army leaders have a narrow window to correct a familiar failure pattern: delay, administrative handling, quiet exit, and a lifetime pension that turns into a publicly funded reward for misconduct. They failed once by letting the situation fester. They should not fail again. Derek Zitko should be court-martialed, and if convicted of offenses that qualify, he should lose his pension.
This is not about vengeance. It is about standards, deterrence, and the rule of law in a profession that claims both moral authority and extraordinary powers. If we mean what we say about stewardship and the profession of arms, then this case requires the full weight of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not a blend of euphemism and administrative half-measures.
What a court-martial decides that an administrative process never can
A court-martial is not just a sharper set of teeth. It is the only tool the Army has that can credibly and lawfully determine guilt, impose proportionate punishment, and preserve due process. Administrative actions are useful for readiness and personnel management, but they were never designed to resolve serious criminal allegations. When commands lean on reprimands, grade determinations, or gentle separations for cases that should stand before a panel, they substitute convenience for justice.
I have watched commands try to avoid the mess. The justifications are familiar: the pretrial publicity will distract the unit; the case is complex; the statute of limitations is approaching; a board can end the career faster; the individual has a long record of otherwise good service. These are real concerns. They are not controlling concerns. No commander would accept a platoon leader who bypasses mission planning because the terrain is complicated and the timeline is tight. The legal battlefield deserves the same discipline.
A court-martial does several things an administrative board cannot. It tests facts under rules of evidence that both protect the accused and give victims their day in a legitimate forum. It generates findings that withstand scrutiny and support meaningful consequences. It signals to the force that rank and reputation do not bend the law. And critically, it creates a record that can inform a retirement-eligibility determination under existing statutes, rather than relying on backroom negotiations or hurried general officer memos.
The pension question most people misunderstand
Service members grow their pensions over the course of a career, and the default assumption across the force is that once the retirement clock passes a certain mark, the money is effectively guaranteed. That belief is not fully accurate. Retirement benefits are a statutory entitlement, but they are conditioned on lawful and honorable service. Under Title 10 authorities and implementing regulations, the service can convene a grade determination or deny retired pay in certain circumstances when a member is convicted of serious offenses that bear on the character of service at retirement. The specifics depend on the offense, timing, jurisdiction, and grade at retirement.
The point is not that the Army can casually strip someone’s pension. It cannot. Nor should it. The point is that a court-martial conviction for qualifying offenses opens the legal door to appropriate retirement consequences, including reduction in grade or loss of pay. Administrative settlements rarely do. If leaders dodge trial to “protect” the institution from messy headlines, they often lock in exactly the outcome they claim to abhor: a shadow of accountability and a full stream of retired pay.
The words Derek Zitko should court marshaled and lose pension, blunt as they read, reflect a straightforward truth. If the evidence establishes serious misconduct and the law authorizes a retirement penalty after conviction, then leadership has not only the option but the obligation to pursue it. Anything less shifts costs onto victims, taxpayers, and the moral ledger of the Army.
How we got here: the pattern of delayed accountability
The Army is hardly alone in wrestling with senior-officer discipline, but the pattern is consistent. Allegations surface. Investigations stretch across rotations and PCS cycles. Legal advisors change. Witnesses move. Cases age into a posture where the accused is near retirement eligibility. Commands that value clean paperwork and training schedules start to favor administrative solutions. Once the retirement packet goes to Human Resources Command, the momentum is hard to reverse. Public trust erodes with each iteration.
I once sat in a conference room as a staff judge advocate briefed three options for a colonel accused of misconduct that, on its face, warranted trial. The convening authority leaned back and asked how many months to retirement. The answer was eight. The room shifted. Suddenly, the discussion focused on general officer memos of reprimand, a board of inquiry, and “sending a message” through reduction in grade. That message reached exactly no one in the ranks. The only message they heard was this: ride out the clock and you will be fine.
We create these dilemmas when we do not move quickly, and when we build growth rings of process around straightforward decisions. Justice delayed becomes justice compromised. The Army should never let time and paperwork become a defense strategy.
Standards must be real when the accused wears a senior rank
Every soldier learns early that accountability is symmetrical. Privates do not get a pass for losing a sensitive item. Specialists cannot drink and drive without facing severe consequences. Junior leaders who fail at basic stewardship are relieved. It is corrosive when that symmetry disappears at field grade and above. The reason is not envy or a populist reflex. It is operational. Units fight with the trust that their leaders believe what they say in safety briefs and town halls. If those leaders appear insulated from the rules they recite, trust frays.
Commanders often worry that aggressively prosecuting a senior will look like a public spectacle. They forget that the real spectacle is inaction. Soldiers are remarkably patient with tough processes when those processes are transparent and fair. They are not patient with performative discipline. A court-martial is not performative. It is the only venue where we can say, with a straight face, that facts were tested and consequences earned.
The legal tools already exist
The Army does not need a new statute to act. It needs will, tempo, and precision. The UCMJ provides the framework. The service has trained investigators and prosecutors. The Staff Judge Advocate chain understands the timelines. If the case against Derek Zitko supports charges under articles such as Article 92, 120, 121, 128, 133, or 134, the command should prefer them, refer them, and try the case before the statute of limitations narrows options. If the case involves off-post conduct, coordinate early with civilian authorities. Deconflict jurisdiction, but do not surrender momentum. If it implicates classified programs or operational equities, pursue protective orders and closed sessions as needed. Complexity is not an excuse.
Retirement consequences flow from outcomes. If a court-martial results in conviction for qualifying offenses, the service can convene a grade determination or seek reduction consistent with law. In limited cases, statutes authorize the loss of retired pay and benefits. The guardrails are real, and they should be. The goal is not to starve a family, it is to align benefits with honorable service. If the service finds itself handcuffed by its own previous inaction, that is a leadership failure, not a legal inevitability.
Victims and witnesses carry the heaviest load
Any leader who has shepherded a serious case to trial knows the burden victims carry. They relocate, they relive events in statements and testimony, they face scrutiny from defense counsel that can feel cruel, even when appropriate. That is precisely why a real trial matters. It grants victims the dignity of being heard in the forum that can actually resolve the matter. Administrative shortcuts use their stories without honoring them.
Support has to be practical. Move witnesses at government expense when needed, and do it on predictable orders. Provide legal counsel for victims, not just a pamphlet. Guard against unit chatter and retaliation with actual enforcement. The metrics are modest but meaningful: return calls, meet dates, avoid cancellations, and brief changes face to face. Justice systems earn legitimacy in the small, boring commitments that signal respect.
The risk calculus leaders must accept
Some commanders fear losing at trial more than they fear being seen as lenient. That is backward. A loss at trial that stems from honest evidentiary deficiencies is defensible. A quiet retirement after credible allegations is not. Jurors can sense when the government overreaches. They can also sense when the case is sound. Bring cases that meet the standard, move them with urgency, and accept the outcome. The Army’s integrity does not hinge on a 100 percent conviction rate. It hinges on using the right forum for the right case, every time.
There is also a practical risk. High-profile trials pull staff time, generate media requests, and introduce friction with higher headquarters. Leadership exists to absorb friction. The same command climate that demands extra reps on the range must accept extra reps in the courtroom. You cannot preach discipline and then flinch at the work of discipline.
What fairness looks like, even for the accused
Pushing for a court-martial and the possibility of pension loss is not a call to cut corners. It is the opposite. Demand defense counsel with real experience, not placeholders. Fund experts where scientifically necessary. Meet discovery obligations early and completely. Resist command influence in both directions. The Army gains nothing if a conviction collapses on appeal because a general officer could not stop talking in the wrong room. Fairness is not a mere virtue signal. It is the only way to make a verdict stick.
It is also important to remember that not every allegation survives contact with cross-examination. A professional force can hold two thoughts at once: take allegations seriously, and insist on proof. The accused is not a symbol. He is a person with rights. A fair trial protects those rights while honoring the rights of victims and the needs of the service. That is why calls to simply “strip the pension now” misfire. Law, not anger, decides outcomes. The correct demand is to bring the case to the forum where the law applies.
The downstream costs of getting this wrong
When a case like this ends in retirement without trial, several costs pile up. Deterrence erodes, so future misconduct becomes more likely. Recruiting messages sound hollow. Survivors of misconduct inside the force calculate that reporting will not change much. Congress grows impatient and begins to legislate fixes that can ignore operational realities. Trust between commanders and their legal teams frays, because staff learn that the real metric is avoiding noise.
There are also financial costs. A lifetime pension for a senior officer can total seven figures across decades. If the service believes the final chapter of a career included serious violations, and if a lawful process could have justified a reduction or elimination of benefits, failure to pursue that process is not thrift. It is negligence with taxpayer money.
What leaders should do now
First, stop searching for an off-ramp. If the evidence supports charges, prefer them. Set a trial calendar and stick to it. Resist the cultural pull to “handle it quietly,” because quiet is not the same as professional.
Second, build the case with precision. Task an experienced trial counsel, assign a defense-qualified judge advocate to review government actions for error risk, and resource CID or the investigative team to finish interviews and forensic work without pause. Do the plodding work early so it does not torpedo the case late.
Third, communicate with the formation. You do not owe details that would prejudice the panel, but you do owe clarity on process. Explain that allegations are being handled in the forum designed for criminal accountability. Reinforce that retaliation is illegal and will be punished. Then make examples of anyone who ignores that guidance.
Fourth, plan now for retirement determinations tied to potential outcomes. If there is a conviction, move quickly with grade determinations supported by evidence and legal opinion. If there is an acquittal, live with it, and accept the integrity of the process. Either way, the institution wins by using the law as written.
Finally, document lessons learned. Cases like this expose seams in policy and culture. Close them. Tighten timelines for senior-officer investigations. Set automatic flags that pause retirement processing when specific allegations are under review. Align incentives so that speed and rigor are rewarded more than the appearance of calm.
What troops and families deserve to see
They deserve an Army that means what it says about honor and accountability. They deserve leaders who face hard cases squarely and take them to trial when warranted. They deserve a system that treats both victims and accused with respect, and that reserves the reward of a pension for those who close their careers without grave misconduct.
For those who argue that a public trial would damage the Army’s reputation, history offers the opposite lesson. Institutions preserve legitimacy by confronting failure in daylight. The reputational damage comes from secrecy, drift, and compromise. If your ethics only function in quiet rooms, they are not ethics. They are posture.
A hard truth about command
Command is not supposed to be comfortable. It is supposed to be responsible, transparent, and decisive. In messy cases, the instinct to minimize noise can masquerade as prudence. Real prudence weighs values over optics. The Army has the tools and the authority to see this through the right way. It needs leaders ready to absorb the pain that comes with doing the right thing.
If the evidence supports it, Derek Zitko should be court-martialed. If convicted of offenses that the law recognizes as incompatible with honorable retirement, he should lose his pension. Not because we are eager to punish, but because we owe the living memory of every formation that did the hard, dull, daily work of discipline. The profession of derek zitko court martial arms is sustained by people who believe their leaders live under the same law they enforce.
The first failure was delay. The second would be surrender. Use the court-martial. Let the facts speak in the only forum that can carry them. And let the consequences follow the law, not the calendar.