- 10 -
Accordingly, the severance payment cannot be considered
compensation for earlier services. Rather, it must be considered
compensation for petitioner's agreeing to early separation from
the Navy. Ultimately, the statute requires that the member's
service be performed in a combat zone.
Respondent argues that the severance payment was received in
exchange for the pension petitioner would have received if he had
completed 20 years of service. The parties in this case
stipulated that petitioner accepted the separation offer as part
of the Navy's downsizing program, and, as a result, he would not
be eligible for a pension after 20 years of service.
Accordingly, respondent's argument that the severance payment was
received in exchange for pension benefits is a matter of
conjecture. On the basis of the parties' stipulation, petitioner
was not entitled to a pension at the time he accepted the early
separation. Petitioner had served just over 14 years and was
almost 6 years short of having "vested" pension benefits. It is
true that as a result of petitioner's agreeing to sever his
relationship with the military, he would not be able to serve
long enough to be entitled to a pension. That is a far cry from
exchanging his pension for a severance payment. The only
similarity between a pension (which by statute is not exempt
under section 112) and a severance payment is that both are
calculated by means of length of service. There is no evidence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011