Posted on 01/05/2026 11:36:18 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice.
Therefore, in response to Senator Mark Kelly’s seditious statements — and his pattern of reckless misconduct — the Department of War is taking administrative action against Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN (Ret). The department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay.
To ensure this action, the Secretary of War has also issued a formal Letter of Censure, which outlines the totality of Captain (for now) Kelly’s reckless misconduct. This Censure is a necessary process step, and will be placed in Captain Kelly’s official and permanent military personnel file.
Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response. The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.
Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.
These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders. This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.
Right on. Now THATS getting “busted down”
Please don't be offended if I take that claim with a few grains of salt....
I'm well aware of that.
The question is whether all the provisions/Articles of the UCMJ apply to the same extent against retirees as they do to active duty. I say "no", but some others here apparently disagree.
I will say that there are nuances regarding the application of the UCMJ, even for active duty personnel, that are not apparent by just reading the text of the Articles themselves.
As one example, what you can say and do when in uniform is different from what you can say and do when not in uniform, and when not identifying yourself as a member of the military. But you won't see that in the text of the UCMJ itself.
Has a military veteran federal legislator ever made such a statement in the past?
A retired military officer who has not resigned their commission can be held accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) if they are retired from active duty and entitled to retirement pay.
Additionally, a retired officer’s rank cannot be lowered or taken away without such legal processes as the UCMJ or an official administrative review process executed under military regulations.
Dual Status of Retired Officers
Retained Commission: Retired officers maintain their commission and are subject to certain military laws and regulations, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in specific circumstances.
Conduct Standards: Military officers, whether active, reserve, or retired, are expected to uphold certain standards of conduct. This includes being responsible for the content and manner of their communications with active-duty personnel.
Possible Consequences
UCMJ Jurisdiction: If the statements made involve matters of military discipline or could incite insubordination, the officer could face UCMJ action.
Administrative Action: Beyond UCMJ implications, the military may pursue administrative action based on the retired officer’s conduct and its impact on service members.
Civil Liability: Depending on the nature of the remarks, the officer could potentially face civil legal consequences, especially if the statements cause harm or distress.
Um...is there a source for that?
They need to do whatever punishment is suitable & if it affects retirement pay...well Mark Kelly should have kept this in mind & been more careful about what he did.
I served 4 yrs. in the military & didn’t necessarily care for the way that some things were done, but I held my tongue & was discharged honorably.
Ha HA!
FAFO!
And since Kelly’s Cartel bosses are either arrested or worried about soon being arrested (or killed), they aren’t likely to be listening to his request for a raise, to make up for the retirement reduction. (Which I hope is going to be reduced to E-1 levels)
There are several..have your paralegal look them up but you can start 10 US Code.
Bust him down to E-1.
“Hegseth should have him charged under the UCMJ if he actually believes him to have violated it.”
Agree. When he spoke, it was clearly in the context of his military service and status.
Maybe if he had preceded the statement with something like, “I’m speaking not as a member of the military, but only as a private citizen”, that could’ve helped him. But, no, he’s throwing out the military issue loudly and clearly.
And then, dragging in Gabby to use for credibility ... shameful!
Do you mean making a statement of fact?
Has any legislator ever felt the need to express THAT EXACT fact, Poindexter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.