Are there historical or recent high-profile examples of retirees recalled and court-martialed in the last decade?
Executive summary
High‑profile examples of retirees recalled and court‑martialed in the past decade are rare but documented: notable cases in reporting and court decisions include Steven Larrabee (court‑martialed for a 2015 offense after retirement) and Stephen Begani (convicted as a retiree; appeals reached military and civilian courts) — both cases underpinning ongoing legal debate about retiree UCMJ jurisdiction [1] [2] [3]. Recent high‑visibility threats or review actions — for example the Pentagon’s 2025 notice about possibly recalling Sen. Mark Kelly for review — show the tool is still invoked and politically salient even when prosecutions are not finalized [4] [5].
1. What the record actually shows: a handful of tested cases, not a flood
Court and news accounts repeatedly describe a small number of retiree prosecutions that reached appellate review; Larrabee’s post‑retirement court‑martial and conviction for sexual assault in 2015 (affirmed when the Supreme Court declined review) is a central example courts and reporters cite to show retirees have been tried [1] [6]. Similarly, Stephen Begani’s conviction after transferring to the Fleet Reserve, and subsequent appeals, illustrate another concrete instance where a retiree was tried and punished under the UCMJ [2] [7]. Multiple legal commentators stress that prosecutions of retirees are “seldom” but legally significant when they occur [1] [8].
2. Why these cases matter: they test constitutional and statutory lines
Larrabee and Begani have become test vehicles for the question whether Congress’s Article I power allows court‑martialing retirees who are functionally civilians; federal courts have split or revisited precedent, producing a live circuit‑court and CAAF record that keeps the issue unsettled and legally consequential [3] [9]. Commentators and legal briefs explicitly frame these cases as potential precedents that could narrow or reaffirm broad UCMJ reach [8] [10].
3. The law that permits recall and jurisdiction — and its limits
Article 2 of the UCMJ and related statutes make certain retirees who remain entitled to pay subject to recall and military jurisdiction; courts and CRS analyses note this longstanding statutory basis and the fact the Supreme Court has not definitively resolved the retiree question, leaving a patchwork of decisions in lower courts and military tribunals [11] [9]. Analysts point out retirees’ continuing entitlement to pay and theoretical recallability are the legal hooks the services rely on [12] [13].
4. Recent high‑profile “threats” illustrate political salience more than a prosecution trend
In November 2025 the Pentagon publicly raised the possibility of recalling Senator Mark Kelly — a retired Navy captain — for UCMJ action tied to a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders; coverage frames this as a review and potential recall rather than a completed court‑martial, underscoring that recall can be used as an investigatory or disciplinary lever and can become a political flashpoint even absent formal charges [4] [5]. Task & Purpose and other outlets noted the Pentagon’s statement and legal experts emphasized the murky case law defending such moves [5] [14].
5. Two competing perspectives in reporting and legal analysis
Legal conservative and defense‑oriented commentators emphasize precedent and practical reasons for retaining retiree jurisdiction (e.g., readiness, recall authority) and underscore appeals courts that have upheld prosecutions [2] [15]. Civil‑liberties‑oriented and some Article III courts or district opinions highlight the historic wariness about military jurisdiction over civilians and worry about extending court‑martial reach indefinitely, urging Supreme Court review or statutory reform [3] [9]. Both views are present in the materials and help explain why the topic remains contested [8] [10].
6. What this means for the “last decade” question and for current risk
If your question asks whether retirees have been recalled and court‑martialed repeatedly in the last ten years: available reporting documents a small number of high‑profile prosecutions and several appellate fights (Larrabee, Begani) rather than a broad wave of retiree court‑martials [1] [2]. At the same time, government statements and coverage (e.g., the 2025 Kelly review) show recall and UCMJ jurisdiction over retirees remain actionable tools and politically consequential when invoked [4] [5].
7. Limitations and unanswered points in the sources
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, quantitative list of all retiree court‑martials nationwide in the last decade; most coverage centers on a few test cases and legal analyses, not an exhaustive docket [10] [1]. If you want a complete count or a catalogue of every retiree court‑martial, that data is not included in the provided reporting and would require a targeted search of military court records and DoD case logs.
Bottom line: the last decade has produced a handful of consequential retiree prosecutions and ongoing court fights that affirm the military’s ability to recall and try some retirees, while also generating legal challenges and public controversy when the tool is used in high‑profile or politically fraught situations [1] [3] [4].