Columnist Sandra Thompson: Benefits for ex-spouses pits legality vs. emotion

THE issue of ex-spouse military retirement benefits should be a legal one, not an emotional one.

That's the assessment of retired Air Force Col. Thomas Murray Jr. of Las Vegas, who believes that ex-wives should not automatically be entitled to military retirement benefits. He says factors such as how much she contributed to her husband's career and the marriage should be quantified and considered in any property settlement.

"The party who filed for divorce should be considered in any review of this issue," he says. "Marriage was never intended to be a for-profit enterprise nor an augmentation of Social Security."

Another retired Las Vegas military officer agrees that each case should be determined on its own merits. There is an assumption that the wife is supporting her husband, he says, but in his case his wife had numerous affairs, including while he was fighting in Desert Storm. Should she be entitled to his retirement benefits after she filed for divorce?

The two retirees were among the flood of calls and e-mail received after last week's column reporting that the House Veterans Affairs Committee is considering changes in benefits to ex-spouses.

The column focused on Las Vegas attorney Marshal Willick's intended testimony before the committee opposing the changes.

It's difficult to separate emotion from the legal aspects of this issue, as evidenced by the responses.

Several women who called had been married for more than 20 years when their career military husbands divorced them. Some hadn't worked during their marriage because they were raising families and helping their husbands. They did not receive a share of their ex-husbands' retirement benefits, which put them on the poverty line.

The military retirees themselves, many of whom remarried, say they're having a hard time financially while their ex-wives have remarried and are getting economic benefits from the former and present marriage.

Murray says that when figuring the divorce property settlement, "career contribution or detraction should be quantified and documented in any agreement. Support during marriage -- from either spouse -- should be considered as a down payment on any future entitlements."

He adds that in the military system, contribution to career enhancement is well documented in effectiveness reports. That documentation should be used in the benefit computation process, he says.

But even if an ex-spouse is awarded benefits at the time of divorce, it doesn't mean she will receive that amount. One woman wrote to say that her benefits have been reduced four times since her 1988 divorce, and she doesn't know why.

Willick, in discussing his testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said some retirees could change their retirement to disability. A retired military man, who's also a retired divorce lawyer, said he doesn't understand how that can be done since it would constitute a fraud.

However, the woman said her ex-husband, since the divorce, received a disability rating and a portion of the benefits are now considered disability, which she is not entitled to. Each time his disability rating is raised, she says, he receives more and she receives less than what she was granted in the divorce decree.

She blames a loophole in the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.

The Veterans Affairs Committee heard about 16 witnesses in hearings last week on House Resolution 2537, which would change ex-spouse benefits.

Dan Amon, press secretary for the committee, says no decision will be made this session of Congress. The issue likely will be brought before the House early in the next session.

Anyone who wants to comment on HR2537 should contact Rep. John Ensign or Rep. Jim Gibbons.

archive