Military Update
Minor changes recommended to ex-spouse act
Military Update focuses on issues affecting pay, benefits and lifestyle of active and retired servicepeople. Its author, Tom Philpott, is a Virginia-based syndicated columnist and freelance writer. He has covered military issues for almost 25 years, including six years as editor of Navy Times. For 17 years he worked as a writer and senior editor for Army Times Publishing Co. Philpott, 49, enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard in 1973 and served as an information officer from 1974-77.
By Tom Philpott
More than 54,000 former spouses receive a share of military retirement each month, direct from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. It's the legacy of the 1982 Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act.
But with both retirees and ex-spouses still pressing, separately, for reforms, what's wrong with this law?
Not much, concludes a Department of Defense report to Congress.
Delivered Sept. 4., two years late, the report recommends only minor adjustments to the USFSPA. It also rejects three of four key provisions of a House reform package, HR 1983, that retiree groups have been pushing for years.
The only prominent feature of HR 1983 that DoD endorses would end "windfall" payments to ex-spouses from longevity gains and promotions earned after the divorce. But that provision should apply only to future divorces, the report says. Other key recommendations in the report call for:
• Repeal of the 10-year marriage requirement for direct payment. Ex-spouses with court orders granting them a share of retirement can get direct payments, but only if they were married at least 10 years while the member was in service. No other retirement plan has such a rule. DoD says it misleads too many ex-spouses into believing they can't seek a slice of retirement unless married 10 years. In fact, that only determines eligibility for direct payment.
• Modifying ex-spouse eligibility for survivor benefit plan (SBP), in several ways. One would allow election of multiple SBP beneficiaries — both ex-spouse and current spouse — with presumption that their SBP shares will match, proportionally, their shares in retired pay.ÊAnother would remove a one-year limit on ex-spouses to seek recognition as court-ordered SBP beneficiary.
• Relaxing the 20-20-20 rule. Former spouses can qualify for medical care and other benefits if 20 years of their marriage overlapped with 20 years of their ex-spouses' service careers. DoD suggests a change to allow up to five years of the 20-year overlap to include member years in retirement. This would apply retroactively to current ex-spouses. The department says it won't recommend a change in law until the cost of adding a few thousand more beneficiaries to medical rolls is assessed and found affordable.
Given the buzz of complaint that swirls around this law, from retirees and ex-spouses alike, the real news in the department's report might be the list of USFSPA provisions it deemed "reasonably effective" and, therefore, should not change.
Many ex-spouses complain that their share of retired pay is reduced unfairly when retirees accept disability pay for their service-connected injuries and illnesses. To do so, retirees accept a dollar-for-dollar cut in retired pay, lowering the "disposable" amount divisible with ex-spouses. DoD suggested that was OK.
It likewise dismisses an argument from retirees that division of retired pay should end if an ex-spouse remarries. This occurs with some ex-spouses of CIA and Foreign Service retirees, but the feature is unusual, the report maintains.
Questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com.
