Military retirement bill may get another look by Oklahoma lawmakers
Proposal would affect pay split for divorcees

This is in direct response to the article concerning attorneys opposing HB 1053. I'd like to know how terminating military retired pay to a remarried former spouse will force the ex-spouse and their new husband and/or wife onto public assistance and welfare rolls. Do they choose not to find employment intentionally so the military member can support them for the rest of their lives? I'd like to know how the criteria/language in HB 1053 will increase the divorce rate. If these attorneys feel that the divorce rate will increase because payments will terminate upon remarriage of the ex-spouse, then has the divorce rate increased for state employees due to their remarriage clause in their retirement plan? How about the CIA and Foreign Service? Their retirement plan includes a remarriage clause. Has the divorce rate increased for them? As far as the Oklahoma Public Employee Pension Plan which covers State Legislators and State Employees, has there been an increase in the divorce rate for them? I submit the high rate of divorce for military members in Oklahoma is a direct result of the automatic incentive for a lifetime monetary award to the former spouse, regardless of remarriage, merit or circumstances which is the current law. HB 1053 will correct this situation and bring in line an equitable and fair public policy. The statements that both attorneys made in this article are purely eye wash/smoke screens and they are trying to play on an emotionally charged fictional tale of woe rather than facts. A more realistic and rational reason is attorneys fear that they will lose their easy profits that they make off the backs of Veterans from the ex-spouse as their clients. There are numerous ways an attorney can get the court to award an automatic retired/retainer pay garnishment before, during, and after the divorce. One unscrupulous way is to get a temporary order dividing the retainer/retired pay, adding it into a child support computation for gross income, resulting in an inflated amount to be paid for child support and then dividing the retainer/retired pay without substracting it from the gross income of the service member or adding it as gross income to the ex-spouse. This is a term they use in the legal profession as "double dipping". The service member winds up paying more for child support, plus half or more of his/her retainer/retired pay without the ex-spouse being held accountable for an increase in their gross monthly income. VA Disability Compensation is off limits in any divorce proceedings by Federal Statue. Yet attorneys are quick to pull another rabbit out of the hat by convincing the courts to award alimony in lieu of VA Disability Compensation. The bottom line, attorneys don't want to lose the easy stream of income that they are accustomed to. Some attorneys are working back room contingency fee agreements with ex-spouses, this is unethical and violates the code of professional responsibility for attorneys both at the State and National level. However, whose going to admit to it? I wonder how many checks the military member wrote from their retired/retainer pay to the ex-spouse that actually were deposited directly into the attorney's bank account. There is an old adage in the law profession, if you can't bang on the facts, bang on the table. There is a lot of table banging going on around here and it's not the Veterans. Veterans are fiercely protective of this Country and the Constitution as evident by their sacrifices. I support HB 1053. We all should, because if it wasn't for the Veterans we would not have the freedom to write this rebuttal. Senators of Oklahoma, support our men and women of the Armed Forces. Reinstate the title and Vote "DO PASS" HB 1053.

Ashton,
Where did you get the definition that a national movement has to have a recognizable and reputable spokesperson? Do you mean like a "infomercial"? Is there a law that says you have to have a recognizable, reputable spokesperson to excercise ones right to peaceably assemble to redress a grievence to the goverment ? Are you saying citizens don't have a right to petition the goverment because you have an opposing agenda? Please say it isn't so. To many men and women have given the ultimite sacrifice for these freedoms.

Come on Ashton. Your attempt to disparage HB 1053 based on the “National Movement “comment is pitiful. If you are so knowledgeable about the “National Movement” why are you asking so many questions about it? Does it exist or not? Why not explain to the public ALL of the facts about the “National Movement” which you imply to know. Better yet why not argue the merits of HB 1053 on the facts and not on speculation and innuendo. I doubt you can do this.

"National movement", come on..... Nope, just a small out of state special interest group, an Oklahoma resident who lost an Okla. Supreme Court case trying to argue the same thing so his military pension wouldn't be split with a spouse in divorce after 19 years, and Rep. Banz seeking to wind the clock back by using outdated terminology: that military retirement pay is 'reduced pay for reduced services", a notion obliterated 30 years ago. Any reputable or positive national movement would also have a recognizable and reputable spokesperson.... If this is a reputable national movement, who is the recognizable and reputable spokesperson (who is not being paid to lobby for this special interest group)? And if there is no recognizable and reputable spokesperson, are there any recognizable and reputable persons even involved in the so-called "movement" which is 'anti-military family'?

I can answer as couple of those questions for you. First, retired military pay comes directly from the time a serviceperson serves (20 years equals 50% average of the the last three years served). The military member does not pay into the system and has no vested rights.The former spouse is vested on date of marriage. If the military member would seperate at 19years, 11months and 29days--they would not get a RETIREMENT, nada,0. The difference between a law enforcement/fire fighter retirement, is basically this---the LE/FF pays 8.5% of the gross wage for each pay period matched by the employer at a rate of 13.5%. You must stay 20 years (vested at 10 years) to draw the retirement OR if you elect to leave prior to the 20 years you can either draw out your contribution or wait until the 20 year time frame has arrived and then apply (maybe not approved) for a retirement check. Here is a question though---if a person is drawing or is going to draw social security, do they have to give a portion of that to the ex-spouse? A few other questions. Is the former spouse subject to recall or the Uniformed Code of Military Justice? Complyent to certain employment restrictions? Do they have to maintain U.S. citezenship? Can the former spouse recieve a portion of the retired pay while incarcerated for a felony? Can a former spouse remarry multiple military members and collect "lifetime" multiple retired/retainer pay awards with cost of living adjustments regardles of lenghth of marriage? Why does DFAS state in their garnishment instructions for attorneys that Retired/Retainer pay is a federal entiltlement and NOT a qualified pension plan therefore a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is NOT required and there is no federal statute requiring this? Didn't the USSC McCarty vs McCarty decision state Military retired/retainer pay does NOT resemble a community property concept? Are attorneys allowed to charge contingency fees with regard to Retired/Retainer pay in a domestic relations matter? Are Oklahoma public employees to include legislators and Judges allowed to terminate payments to their remarried alternate payee (former spouse) even though the OPERS is a qualified pension plan? Why isn't military Retired/Retainer pay like a 401K,IRA or qualified pension plan? Does the CIA and Foreign Service terminate their federal entitlement to a remarried former spouse? How come a Military member cannot draw or cash out retired/retainer pay for less than 20 years? In closing, MRP is an income Not a pension.

excerpt from article- "Banz said the proposed changes in Oklahoma law mirror a national movement to address issues of veteran pay."

The national movement being referred to is not a new movement and has been a failed national movement for almost 30 years ... for good reason. The objective of the small divorced service member special interest group has been to secure preferential treatment for military service members in divorces by arguing that military retirement pay is not retirement pay. Even the U.S. Dept. of Defense's General Counsel has testified against ULSG bills worded exactly the same as the Oklahoma bill. Banz is more knowledgable about military matters than the U.S. Department of Defense?

All that is new here is that the small divorced military special interest group has given up on succeeding with their discriminatory bills at the national level because those bills all fail and has instead begun pursuing a new objective of targeting state legislatures to support their preferential treatment for service member bills.

So, if a couple are married (1 a service member, and the other an elementary school teacher) and then divorce, when their marital property is divided in court: the military service member gets 1/2 of the spouse's teacher pension for life, and the teacher spouse gets no pension division of the military pension? Hardly equitable. Terrible bill.

If a police officer's pension is divided as marital property in a divorce, so should a military pension be divided as marital property in a divorce.

The count is now over 93,000 retired service members negatively impacted by the USFSPA (and counting), per stats from DFAS as of April 01, 2009. These stats are available at: www.ulsg.org. Most likely, this OK bill will die in committee, just as all other attempts to reform the fraudulent USFSPA have. Remember - all the politicians are out for are VOTES (and, many times, to line their own pockets), not for justice.

The current program is definitely not fair. I am a veteran but I have never been married and I didn't retire from the military.

Yes I would agree, my ex-spouse, also makes more then me without a portion my retirement, and the Department of Defense has let state courts decide the matter, across America vets are getting screwed by different standards, and Defense doesnt care, and neither do most elected officals. Pat Shroeders original bill was to prevent WAR BRIDES FROM STRAVING TO DEATH, in the modern sense vets are doing the straving because of the Former Spouse Protection Act. The Law is unfair, and at last count as many as 77,000 retired vets have their retirement garnished to satisfy state court decrees.