- 5 -
Congress, in enacting the military retirement system then in
place, “designed to accomplish two major goals: to provide for
the retired service member, and to meet the personnel management
needs of the active military forces.” Id. at 232-233. The Court
held that “The community property division of retired pay has the
potential to frustrate each of these objectives.” Id. at 233.
In noting that “in no area has the Court accorded Congress
greater deference than in the conduct and control of military
affairs”, the Court invalidated the California law at issue as
being preempted by Federal law. Id. at 236.
In response, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Former
Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408 (2000). In
general, 10 U.S.C. section 1408(c)(1), provides, inter alia
a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable
to a member * * * either as property solely of the member or
as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with
the law of the jurisdiction of such court.
The provisions of the USFSPA were intended “to restore the
law to what it was when the courts were permitted to apply State
divorce laws to military retired pay”. S. Rept. 97-502, at 5
(1982). The USFSPA did not create any right or entitlement to
military retired pay, nor did it either require or prohibit any
3(...continued)
relating to the equitable division of marital property vest a
spouse with interests analogous to those she would possess in a
community property State. See Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581,
584 n.2 (1989); S. Rept. 97-502, at 2, 3 (1982).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011