In Canada, if you retire after 10 years of service and are honorably discharged you may use your rank with “(retired)” or “(ret’d)”.
QR&O 15.09 - Use of Rank and Title After Release
I’ve only been called by my active duty rank by one person since retirement. He was a civilian gate guard at the AFB where I was working as a contractor. After the first time he checked my ID, he always greeted me with “Good morning, Chief!”
If you retire after putting in enough years to qualify for a pension and permanent PX privileges, etc., then you are entitles to use your title, whether you were an NCO or an officer, but people who served four by four and didn’t re-enlist, even if they are combat veterans, are not entitled to use it-- except in reference to their combat service. My husband can buy a plaque on an Iraq service wall that says SGT Maccaby, or make a donation in that name that somehow references his service, or give his name as SGT Firstname Maccaby to someone who has a discount for service members and war veterans.
My father resigned a commission in the Air Force reserves after I was born, and he was a Captain, but he also had a Ph.D, and as far as he was concerned, “Dr.” was better than “CPT.” He never used CPT except when he applied for USAA travel benefits, and a credit card.
Address his next letter Dear Major Nuisance*:*
Wow, I just noticed this is a zombie.
(Understand this is a zombie . . .)
All military personnel who retire are on the “retired list” and as such, are subject to the UCMJ and subject to recall. This counts for an E-5 to O-10. (I don’t personally know of any retired E-4 or below personnel.) Even personnel with a disability can be recalled, but I can’t imagine we’d ever get there.
All Officers (not just flags) carry their rank into retirement (which is why retired Officers should be saluted by more junior Officers and Enlisted personnel, although that is rarely done). I honestly don’t know what the rule if for enlisted personnel, but I do know some retired senior Enlisted personal who I call “Master Chief” or Senior Chief" out of respect and I’ve always received smile or a nod.
Having said all of that, I’d never be pissed off if someone didn’t address me by my retired rank if they knew it, and if someone got their boxers in a bunch over it, I’d think they were a jackass.
IME, the title is appropriate in some formal stuations, but most don’t bother to use it. I more often hear it in frequent use with the higher, more rarified ranks / rates; Admiral Nuttscratch, or Master Chief Pudslammer.
Honestly, it’s pretentious to bother with the title outside of service-related or formal circumstances.
In the UK, any ex officer who tried to insist on being addressed by his old rank would be considered a bit of a wanker these days.
Especially since the popular assumption about those who do (or rather, did in the old days, I think) is that they were probably of less elevated rank in a less than glamorous unit. To refer back to the zombie post, the point about “Captain” Peacock was that he hadn’t been anything of the kind anyway, just a corporal in the Pay Corps or something similar.
Although the following does not refer to a military situation, it is somewhat in the same spirit. And, since this is a zombie thread, I feel somewhat safe in a slight thread detour.
When I worked in a theological setting (where titles seemed to matter), I asked my boss what the protocol was when referring to someone as “Doctor” if I didn’t know his or her actual educational background. His response was, “It is better to ‘Doctor’ a brother, than to ‘brother’ a Doctor.” So, if I were ever in doubt, I would always refer to someone as “Doctor So-and-so” (obviously, not their real name). If they weren’t a doctor, they would correct me.
The corresponding custom in the US services is, or was, I believe, that O-6 and above (Navy Captain or ground or air forces Colonel) were still addressed by their rank in retirement. But it’s only a custom as I assume is case with the British also (and how about [Army] Capt Hastings in the Poirot TV series? 
).
There’s no US military regulation against identifying yourself by any former rank when retired, as long as it doesn’t associate the military with something disreputable in their judgement.
And it seems as grades in school have inflated, the ranks ex US military people like to keep as titles post retirement seem to have deflated. A friend of mine’s retired dad wanted to be addressed (in writing anyway) LTC (USAF Lt Col) rather than Mr. and some retired ‘military analysts’ on TV now use lower than O-6 ranks (ret) as titles too.
I once worked for a retired Admiral who insisted on being addressed as Admiral. I didn’t have a problem with that per se, although he did happen to be a jerk.
Someone needs to retire this thread. 
Just a few days ago, I watched the episode of Grace & Favour In which Peacock testified at Mrs. Slocombe’s trial. He stated that his rank on leaving the military was “honorary captain”. In one episode of the original series, Are You Being Served?, Peacock stated he was in the Royal Army Service Corps, which Mr. Lucas called 'the naffy".
That’s my understanding too. When I served with the British Army in the 60s and 70s only Majors and above got to style themselves by their rank on being decommissioned. All the Captains in civvy street were using their old rank unofficially although I don’t know if they would actually be sanctioned for doing so.
That’s NAAFI, the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. Basically in charge of operating recreational facilities, clubs, restaurants, supermarkets, and so forth on British military bases. According to wikipedia, male members of the NAAFI were also part of the Royal Army Service Corps (RASC).
Captain Peacock’s exact service record is a matter of some confusion over the years. It’s true that Mr. Goldberg, who knew him during the war, claimed that he had only been a corporal. But that was many years into the show. Prior to that no one had seemed to dispute that he had been a captain, or that it was inappropriate to address him as such. He claimed to have fought Rommel in Africa, but at times both the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Signals Corps were also mentioned.
Captain Peacock was supposedly based on an actual floor walker at Harrod’s, who in fact was a retired Major, and was always addressed by his rank. This might support the fact that only Majors and above are really entitled to continue using their rank after retirement. The creators of AYBS might not have known all the rules when they made their character a captain instead of a major.
David Lloyd, one of the two co-creators, was a British Army officer during and after WWII, ending up as a Major. I like to think Peacock’s rank was chosen carefully.
Yes. I used to work in military aerospace so there were plenty of ex-service people. The conversation usually started, “Hi, I’m looking for Major Bloggs.” “Please call me Fred.”
Since we can now answer General Questions largely through the medium of British sit-coms [about f’ing time], can I just add that Norman Stanley Fletcher, the star of Porridge, had served in the RASC, which he said stood for ‘Run Away, Someone’s Coming’.
Huh. I never knew this, and think it extraordinary. (Not that I never knew it, which is normal.)
About England, upthread, and especially TV, doesn’t every other comedy have a doddering old Major hanging around? Or maybe I’m just imprinted with Fawlty Towers.
FWIWI, in Israel, the sense of the thread would apply to almost every Jewish citizen up to a certain age, with a number of exceptions for some younger people post-service. And I’d think using a military title in civilian life would be even more laughable, if not illegal. Except in advertisements/marketing materials directed at foreigners, of course. Paging Alessan)…
This morning, I watched the final episode of Grace & Favour. Peacock himself was surprised to hear what tales of daring do he had embellished/related to Miss Lovelock while he was in his cups. His responses to her retelling were along the lines of “There’s a D-notice on that” or “I’m prohibited from giving more detail”.
[Still know this is a zombie . . .]
This isn’t correct, at least in the US. If you do you’re 20 or more, and if you accept your retirement check, you are transfer to the “retired reserve.” As such, from E-4 to O-10, you are subject to recall.
If for some odd reason, if you don’t want to take your retirement after sufficient time that you have qualified for it, you are not in the “retired reserve” and you’re not subject to recall. Having said that, I’ve never heard of anyone doing it.