I don't know a lot about the down-and-dirty details of the Act, but I've certainly seen cases where it's been completely unjust. Seems to me, divorce settlements should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with conditions worded into whatever agreement the parties arrive at when they sign.

Correct me if my memory is wrong on this but this is what I seem to recall. The Supreme Court ruled on a case that the retirement pay could not be touched, but invited Congress to address the issue by legislation. Pat Schroeder (D-CO) was one of the sponsors of the Act which is cited. Pat would fit in well with those anti-military of the left today, but that was standard in the post-Vietnam period. Unless the basics have changed, my understanding is that no amount of retirement can be tagged unless the spouse was married for 10 years of the period of service. That there is no limitation on child support, but the spouse is limited to no more than 50% of the retirement. So the questions which need clarification are:
Are there childern? How many? Is child support part of the amount the servicemember is talking about?
Where they married for more than 10 years of active service?

Don
Child support is not a factor. The military members retirement it subject to a split - as community property - up to 50-50 depending on length of marriage. This has no impact on alimony, child support, etc. And it's automatic, no questions asked.

Yes, it should be handled on a case by case basis but it's not.

Odd that it seems completely fair to most people when it's a Male Service Member's pension.

I've always thought it was a horrible rule. Saw a couple of my CPO's get royally screwed by it.

Let me clarify. Child support would be above the split. So the retired servicemember would fork over 50% on the divorce and then be hit for additional deductions for the child support which depending upon the judge could amount to an additional 10 to the remaining 50%. That's why I asked if child support was involved in this case.

See my post on my blog on this subject. Its a bad law and it is made worse because DOD will call it what it is, bad legislation in need of reform. (http://fareastcynic.blogspot.com/2005/06/please-indulge-me-in-rant.html).