Imagine this: a couple of friends of a U.S. military officer were banned from a civilian martial arts organization for serious violations of conduct. The decision was fair and necessary—especially since it was learned by the organization that one of those individuals is a prime suspect in a police investigation for online threats against a child and threatening to kill a child. This same military officer had received martial arts ranks from the individuals over the years, and he even sat on the board of the organization that his friends had attempted to join. Yet instead of showing integrity or accepting the consequences of their actions, the officer chose retaliation over responsibility. Driven by anger and misplaced loyalty, he didn’t direct his frustration toward the police or investigators handling the case instead, he targeted me.
In that act of vindictiveness, he composed and sent an email to the organization’s leadership filled with false, malicious, and defamatory accusations specifically intended to destroy my reputation. This was no misunderstanding or lapse in judgment, on his part it was a calculated attempt to slander and discredit me. By weaponizing communication channels to spread deliberate falsehoods about a civilian, the officer crossed the line from professional misconduct into retaliatory defamation—compounding the gravity of his actions by doing so in defense of a person under active criminal investigation.
The officer’s email constitutes written defamation if its contents are false and harmful. Because the motive is retaliatory—attempting to “get even” with the organization through character assassination—the civilian victim can claim actual malice, significantly strengthening their case for compensatory and punitive damages.
The Air Force views retaliation and abuse of authority with
particular gravity; such actions erode command credibility and can result in
career‑ending
administrative measures, including reprimand, loss of clearance, or
decommissioning.
By retaliating on behalf of someone implicated in a child‑threat
investigation, the officer’s conduct
also raises potential questions of ethical complicity—supporting or shielding a
person accused of criminal behavior rather than upholding integrity and
lawfulness. This further intensifies both disciplinary and reputational
consequences.
Under U.S. civil law, defamation occurs when someone
publishes a false statement of fact about another person that causes harm. In
written form—such as an email—it becomes libel. A civilian harmed by such an
act can bring a lawsuit seeking substantial damages.
To prevail, the civilian only needs to prove:
The officer made false factual claims.
The email was sent to a third party (the organization).
The officer was negligent—or malicious—in verifying the
truth.
The statement caused harm or intended to cause harm.
Because the email was retaliatory, the civilian can allege
actual malice, defeating any “qualified privilege” the officer might claim for
communications made in good faith. Courts take retaliatory motives seriously,
and punitive damages may follow if the conduct was outrageous or malicious.
Within the military, an officer’s duty to act honorably is
codified in multiple UCMJ provisions. Sending defamatory or retaliatory
communications can breach several of them:
Article 107 – False Official Statements: If the email was
sent using an Air Force system or included official identification, knowingly
spreading false information may constitute a “false official statement.” This
offense is punishable by confinement, loss of pay, and dismissal from service.
Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer: Retaliatory
defamation sharply conflicts with the standards of decency, truthfulness, and
professionalism expected of commissioned officers. Conviction under this
article can result in separation or a dismissal equivalent to a dishonorable
discharge.
Article 134 – General Article: Even if the act was “off‑duty,” it still harms the image of the Air Force and can be charged
as service‑discrediting conduct.
The reputational and career fallout within the military can
be as damaging as any civil penalty. An officer engaged in personal vendettas
through abuse of communication channels may lose promotions, security
clearance, or command trust. Substantiated misconduct may lead to an Officer
Grade Determination, referral for Board of Inquiry, or ultimately the loss of
commission and involuntary decommissioning from active service. Once integrity
and trust are compromised, reinstatement within military leadership circles
becomes nearly impossible.
Retaliating on behalf of one’s associates, or using military status to intimidate or discredit civilians, falls under abuse of authority—a serious ethical violation. The Air Force Inspector General encourages civilians and service members alike to report such misconduct through official channels. Investigations can lead to reprimands, administrative action, or court‑martial proceedings.
Make no Mistake I'm coming for you.
