Desert Storm veterans whose marriages could not withstand the strains of deployment and combat will be among those blindsided by a little-known law their military leadership has "neglected" to tell them about.

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act., Public Law 97-252, which took effect Feb. 1, 1983, renders military retired pay divisible as property in the event of divorce. Up to 50 percent of a retirees' retainer pay may be awarded to an ex-spouse by a state court in a divorce action. In many cases, courts have added this to awards of alimony, child support and a share of other assets of the marriage.

Awards of retirement pay may be - and have been -- made irrespective of fault, merit, need or ability to pay. Once awarded, payments must continue throughout the lifetime of the party first to die (payer or payee), whether or not the benefiting ex-spouse remarries or has other changes in status that might mitigate the need for payments. And payments to the ex-spouse are based on the pay grade attained by the military member at the time of retirement, not the pay grade at the time of divorce.

The USFSPA applies equally to male and female military retirees. Although originally "sold" on Capitol Hill as a measure to protect deserving, deserted spouses of military members, the law has created an even larger body of victims than the spouses it was allegedly designed to protect: retirees and their second families. Passage of the USFSPA created a rush to open old divorces, dating back into the l950s. Although the congressional conference report accompanying the legislation said it was not intended to permit the opening of old divorces, the language of the law itself did not include the "grandfathering" provisions necessary to prevent it. Once this Pandora's Box was opened, state courts freely ordered the payment of arrearages, plus follow-up payments for life. The result was financial ruin for thousands of blindsided military retirees.

It took Congress eight years to start unraveling its original mistakes and, in November 1990, it amended the USFSPA to preclude the reopening of divorce cases before June 25, 1981, and reopened subsequent to passage of the USFSPA. Even then, however, the 1990 legislation was not grandfathered to protect those whose divorces fall into the June 1981 to February 19E3 gap. Worse, those already making payments were required to continue paying for a period of two years (until Nov. 5, 1992), despite the fact that early USFSPA victims were bushwhacked with no notice whatsoever.

The fundamental flaw in the USFSPA is that it regards military retirement pay as a pension and, therefore, property that can be divided. All other federal statutes and case law have historically and consistently regarded military retirement as reduced pay for reduced services with no attributes of a pension.

This is the official position of the Defense Department, the U5. Supreme Court, the comptroller general, U.S. bankruptcy courts and the Internal Revenue Service. The USFSPA's treatment of retired pay as divisible property is, therefore, in conflict with every other applicable law and legal authority of the land.

Military retirees stand alone as the only U.S. citizens who have their income treated simultaneously as pay and property, at the whim of the government.

There were numerous USFSPA victims among those involuntarily recalled for military duty during the Desert Storm. They were recalled under the shadow of a law that permitted state courts to determine the amount of retainer pay they had been receiving to remain ready to fulfill a federal obligation.

Concurrently, they were subject to conditions such as dual compensation constraints, compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, restraints on foreign travel.

None of these constraints applied to their benefiting ex-spouses who were drawing from the same retirement pay envelope -- nor were those ex-spouses concerned about any possibility of recall and exposure to the rigors of living and fighting in the desert.

The origins of the USFSPA are lodged in the Supreme Court of the United States which, on June 26, 1981, ruled in McCarty vs. McCarty that military retirement pay belonged solely to the individual who was receiving reduced pay to fulfill certain (reduced) obligations to the federal government. Having so ruled, the Supreme Court then challenged Congress to overrule that finding if it wished.

Advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment and other pro-feminist members of Congress recognized an unprecedented opportunity to upgrade their political credentials with the powerful female voting bloc. They regarded as trivial the overall political impact of female military members who would be affected.

Male military members were portrayed as quintessential, devil-may-care, madcap playboys, who roamed the world seeking, adulterous relationships while leaving at home spouses that could be abandoned at will.

"Although originally "sold" on Capitol Hill as a measure to protect deserving, deserted spouses of military members, the law has created an even larger body of victims than the spouses it was allegedly designed to protect: retirees and their second families.”

No credit at all was accorded to that overwhelming majority of divorced military veterans who had treated their ex-spouses conscientiously and honorably. Unaccustomed as they were to the rough and tumble political process, military career people girded for a fair fight which never materialized.

Thus, the federal government surreptitiously inserted itself into a legal process (divorce) historically reserved for the states.

Military veterans were slow to realize that a government they had trusted all their professional lives had done them in. It was not until 1984 that a group of USFSPA victims in California realized that an organized effort was necessary to restore fairness and equity to the military divorce process. That was the genesis of the American Retirees Association, the only existing veterans organization with USFSPA reform as its sole agenda.

During 1990, the ARA led the lobbying effort that persuaded Congress to amend the USFSPA to preclude its application retroactively. The ARA's 1991 legislative agenda lists, at the top, further amendment to provide for the termination of payments upon remarriage of the ex-spouse.

The ARA believes today's problems with the USFSPA, while formidable, are not unsolvable.

Desert Storm veterans and others who expect to be touched by the USFSPA, may contact the ARA via telephone: (in the East) at (703) 527-3065; (in the West) at (619) 239-9000.

Military veterans aren't asking for a win in divorce court, just a tie. They are looking to Congress, which created this mess, to clean it up and restore fairness and equity to the military divorce process.

Related Sites:

• American Retirees Association
• Write to your U.S. senator
• Write to your U.S. representative

To make it easy to write to your congressman, just cut and past this:

Please do all you can to overturn the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act!! I don't have much time to write a long detailed letter but the following sums it up:

Retired pay and divorce: More changes to the law needed Desert Storm veterans whose marriages could not withstand the strains of deployment and combat will be among those blindsided by a little-known law their military leadership has "neglected" to tell them about.

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act., Public Law 97-252, which took effect Feb. 1, 1983, renders military retired pay divisible as property in the event of divorce. Up to 50 percent of a retirees' retainer pay may be awarded to an ex-spouse by a state court in a divorce action. In many cases, courts have added this to awards of alimony, child support and a share of other assets of the marriage.

Awards of retirement pay may be - and have been -- made irrespective of fault, merit, need or ability to pay. Once awarded, payments must continue throughout the lifetime of the party first to die (payer or payee), whether or not the benefiting ex-spouse remarries or has other changes in status that might mitigate the need for payments. And payments to the ex-spouse are based on the pay grade attained by the military member at the time of retirement, not the pay grade at the time of divorce.

The USFSPA applies equally to male and female military retirees. Although originally "sold" on Capitol Hill as a measure to protect deserving, deserted spouses of military members, the law has created an even larger body of victims than the spouses it was allegedly designed to protect: retirees and their second families. Passage of the USFSPA created a rush to open old divorces, dating back into the l950s. Although the congressional conference report accompanying the legislation said it was not intended to permit the opening of old divorces, the language of the law itself did not include the "grandfathering" provisions necessary to prevent it. Once this Pandora's Box was opened, state courts freely ordered the payment of arrearages, plus follow-up payments for life. The result was financial ruin for thousands of blindsided military retirees.

It took Congress eight years to start unraveling its original mistakes and, in November 1990, it amended the USFSPA to preclude the reopening of divorce cases before June 25, 1981, and reopened subsequent to passage of the USFSPA. Even then, however, the 1990 legislation was not grandfathered to protect those whose divorces fall into the June 1981 to February 19E3 gap. Worse, those already making payments were required to continue paying for a period of two years (until Nov. 5, 1992), despite the fact that early USFSPA victims were bushwhacked with no notice whatsoever.

The fundamental flaw in the USFSPA is that it regards military retirement pay as a pension and, therefore, property that can be divided. All other federal statutes and case law have historically and consistently regarded military retirement as reduced pay for reduced services with no attributes of a pension.

This is the official position of the Defense Department, the U5. Supreme Court, the comptroller general, U.S. bankruptcy courts and the Internal Revenue Service. The USFSPA's treatment of retired pay as divisible property is, therefore, in conflict with every other applicable law and legal authority of the land.

Military retirees stand alone as the only U.S. citizens who have their income treated simultaneously as pay and property, at the whim of the government.

There were numerous USFSPA victims among those involuntarily recalled for military duty during the Desert Storm. They were recalled under the shadow of a law that permitted state courts to determine the amount of retainer pay they had been receiving to remain ready to fulfill a federal obligation.

Concurrently, they were subject to conditions such as dual compensation constraints, compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, restraints on foreign travel.

None of these constraints applied to their benefiting ex-spouses who were drawing from the same retirement pay envelope -- nor were those ex-spouses concerned about any possibility of recall and exposure to the rigors of living and fighting in the desert.

The origins of the USFSPA are lodged in the Supreme Court of the United States which, on June 26, 1981, ruled in McCarty vs. McCarty that military retirement pay belonged solely to the individual who was receiving reduced pay to fulfill certain (reduced) obligations to the federal government. Having so ruled, the Supreme Court then challenged Congress to overrule that finding if it wished.

Advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment and other pro-feminist members of Congress recognized an unprecedented opportunity to upgrade their political credentials with the powerful female voting bloc. They regarded as trivial the overall political impact of female military members who would be affected.

Male military members were portrayed as quintessential, devil-may-care, madcap playboys, who roamed the world seeking, adulterous relationships while leaving at home spouses that could be abandoned at will.

"Although originally "sold" on Capitol Hill as a measure to protect deserving, deserted spouses of military members, the law has created an even larger body of victims than the spouses it was allegedly designed to protect: retirees and their second families.”No credit at all was accorded to that overwhelming majority of divorced military veterans who had treated their ex-spouses conscientiously and honorably. Unaccustomed as they were to the rough and tumble political process, military career people girded for a fair fight which never materialized.Thus, the federal government surreptitiously inserted itself into a legal process (divorce) historically reserved for the states.

Military veterans were slow to realize that a government they had trusted all their professional lives had done them in. It was not until 1984 that a group of USFSPA victims in California realized that an organized effort was necessary to restore fairness and equity to the military divorce process. That was the genesis of the American Retirees Association, the only existing veterans organization with USFSPA reform as its sole agenda.

During 1990, the ARA led the lobbying effort that persuaded Congress to amend the USFSPA to preclude its application retroactively. The ARA's 1991 legislative agenda lists, at the top, further amendment to provide for the termination of payments upon remarriage of the ex-spouse.

The ARA believes today's problems with the USFSPA, while formidable, are not unsolvable.

Desert Storm veterans and others who expect to be touched by the USFSPA, may contact the ARA via telephone: (in the East) at (703) 527-3065; (in the West) at (619) 239-9000.

Military veterans aren't asking for a win in divorce court, just a tie. They are looking to Congress, which created this mess, to clean it up and restore fairness and equity to the military divorce process.