2013 USFSPA Changes in Pennsylvania
Military Divorce Spouse Benefits May Change in Pennsylvania
On October 28, 2013 the Pennsylvania House Democratic Committee, lead by House Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster, heard concerns on HB1192 containing proposals to change to how Pennsylvania applies the USFSPA to military divorce.
House Bill 1192 was introduced by Representative Jaret Gibbons on February 14, 2013. The bill proposes a USFSPA change to treat the military retirement pay in divorce, and it also adds language that would limit the amount divisible when the pension is treated as marital property (limited to rank, pay grade, and time of service at the time of separation).
Gibbons HB1192 is clearly looking to limit division of retired pay with the military spouse:
“As such, my legislation would amend Title 23 to specify that the court may treat disposable retired pay or retainer pay, payable to a military member, either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and the spouse of the member. If the court determines that the disposable retired pay or retainer pay of a military member is martial property, the court will be required to calculate the amount consistent with the rank, pay grade and length of service of the member at the time separation. Under current law, military retirement pay is not specifically excluded as marital property. Therefore, regardless of the length of marriage or military service, military retirement pay is often, if not always, subject to division. Given the clear differences between military retirement pay and traditional pensions, the treatment of this pay as property should be considered more carefully by the judicial branch on a case-by-case basis to determine if the pay should be divided between the military member and the former spouse.” (See his memorandum)
The meeting was open to the public with claims that they were “interested” in hearing from those who would be impacted by this bill.
Agenda and Representatives for HB1192 Discussion
Here’s the agenda and who was present to speak:
- 3 p.m. Welcome and opening remark
- 3:10 p.m.Larry White, national director, USFSPA Liberation Support Group
- 3:40 p.m. Panel one:
- Bob Balick, retired serviceman and board member of American Retirees Association
- Brenda Lee Smith, retained/retired military
- Frank Kurland, retained/retired Navy
- Karen Throckmorton, concerned citizen
- 4:10 p.m. Panel two:
- Dale Hill, Pennsylvania representative, ULSG
- Kathleen Sterling, concerned citizen
- 4:50 p.m. Closing remarks
Biased Much? – Who Represents the Military Spouse?
The agenda above includes representatives from the ULSG, military retirees, and two concerned citizens. We might assume the concerned citizens are not and never have been military spouses, or they would have so indicated.
So…who exactly represented the viewpoint of the military spouse?
How about inviting some spouses next time? People who’ve “Been there – done that” might actually have some valuable information to share.
We can confirm that at least one of the people present subscribes to Former Military Spouse (this blog), and could have easily helped notify military spouses of this public meeting. Our contact us form is readily available, and we could have passed on the information. We do have interested military spouses on the east coast who might have attended; spouses interested in forming a group to ensure the rights of military spouses are protected.
Both sides should be represented in USFSPA discussions. Announcing a meeting on the Internet or in newspapers with a 3 day notice (we found some Oct 25th postings), is not indicative of a discussion group that is “interested” in hearing from those who would be impacted by this bill.
Please help keep both parties, service members and military spouses informed of their rights during divorce. This is why this website was started:
- Click the share buttons to help inform current and former military spouses of proposals to change the USFSPA.
- Use the comment form to add any additional information you find on HB1192 (or any new names it might assume as it proceeds through Pennsylvania).
Pennsylvania House Bill 1192 (HB1192)
Here’s a copy of the USFSPA changes proposed:
Karen, I don’t know how long you were married, or what your situation was as a military spouse, but for the vast majority being a military spouse has unique challenges. Times are changing, and it is somewhat easier, with the internet and improvements in communication, to get an education and have a mobile career, but this is very recent. And job preferences are relatively recent, at least effectual ones. And civilians who divorce do divide up assets such as their 401Ks and the like. All married couples make agreements, and military couples almost always have to choose to make the military member’s career #1, unless they are dual military. And they don’t have a support network of family to help out, or the ability to gain equity in a home, or work toward their own retirement by staying in a firm for 20-30 years. My family moved 14 times in 19 years, 6 of those moves were overseas. I can’t think of any other profession that would require this, but surely most would be better compensated than the military. An equitable portion of the retirement pay isn’t our “cake” — it is our marital property, just like the marital property of any civilian marriage.
At issue is that there aren’t good ways of getting this type of information out to military spouses, current and former, who need to be aware of legislation that can effect their interests, so that we make sure our side is heard. There are plenty of organizations that support the military member, with money and clout, making sure that they are heard.
Yes, the word needs to get out to ALL, both military and civilian –
The facts of the laws of what military retired pay is DESIGNED to do are the essentials of this discussion. The USFSPA is “legal fiction” – if the country bumpkins who wrote the USFSPA legislation had read more about miliary retired pay and why it was created and had not been in such a damn rush to pass the USFSPA without public exposure, military retired pay would still be non-divisible per “McCarty” ! ! ! ! !
1. Marriage is a unique challenge, period!!
2. You divide assets accrued during the marriage – military has a 401 did you now belong. MRP is a wage not a pension.
3. MRP is a wage-DoD will confirm that, but that does not further you “poor me cause” to be honest. You represent retired/retainer pay as something it is not. It is a contracted agreement between the military person and the US Gov. not you.
4. Exactly what career were you denied? Can you prove that
In the 80″s directive 1400.33 was issued just for the military spouse – look it up. College by mail and on line has been around for over 20 years. Why didn’t you educate yourself? Don’t use children as an excuse – because people like you have won the right to your own body. Children are a choice. You were never denied child support.
5. Prove how much you think you would have made if you had a house for 20 years if you were married that long. Why did you not save your money that would have gone to property taxes, utilities, mowers, gas, landscaping, new roofs and all of the extra’s that go into a house. Why did you not save the money you saved on groceries (especially when you did not have to feed a husband who was on deployment), discounted groceries, discounted airfares, and everything else you received discounts for.
6. Many (GE, Wal-Mart,K Mart, Westinghouse(just a couple) move their employees all over the world many times as they rise in the company. They move away from family and friends and do not have a ready made community to show them the way. How about the sight seeing and world experiences you children received if you went overseas. That you make this is a negative is just another poor me, pay me excuse.
7. Very few companies have a pension but a 401k which is transferrable to every company you change to. You can open and IRA or Roth IRA even if you work at the commissary.
8. About 99% of you who complain about military life marry right back into military life. So how tuff is military life?
You and your ilk are just looking for a handout. No one owes you a living because of your personal choice. Lead the way to repeal USFSPA and quit being a poor me, you owe me woman who makes a living selling her sentiments.
If you are buying her book you are being scammed. She is using your hardship to her benefit.
Look at the situation honestly, see what you have really gained and who supported you all of the years. The military person does not create a career that they can walk into in civilian life. They serve for life.
Finally no one should have to pay you for the rest of your life out of current wages for you personal life choices.
You make your life what you want it to be – you have choices.
Basically, get a life, be responsible for your own life, educate yourself and quit lying to everyone about what military retainer pay really is.
Dear Grammi, We can argue endlessly our points — we obviously are on different “sides” on this issue. My point is that my “side” should be equally represented when this issue is under consideration by legislators. Respectfully, Debbie
Debbi –
Yes The points of each side can and should be discussed – HOWEVER, Emotional selfishness and leaching off the sole entitlement of another person is not included in ANY discussion about the USFSPA. Let’s face it – it was and still is a BAD LAW ! With many states now revising their domestic relations laws, unconstitutional division of military retired pay will be a bad dream of the past !
Since this blog is entitled formermilitaryspouse.com I think you can assume you will read opinions that differ from yours. Respectfully educating each other, since we all have a different perspectful based on our experiences, without anger or making it personal, is a worthy goal.
I was not arguing. I was only stating the facts that you can’t and won’t answer.
All of the facts are not permitted in the case of a divorce and the Pa. law will make former spouses have to prove that mrp is not a wage and they deserve it for some explicit reason.
Should a person with a 6 figure income, educated by their military spouse get paid for life just because they said I do.
I do believe that your wages should be paid for life to your former military spouse. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Should and abused female serviceperson be forced to pay for life her abuser?
Because of people like you,and the attitude of former spouses that feel they are owed something for nothing, gross injustice is done to those who still serve.
Every one of the former spouses should remand their payments back to the serviceperson they are stealing , yes stealing ,from and get a job, learn to respect yourself, take care of yourself and quit being a poor me dependent on self pity.
No one is suggesting that child support or alimony or maintenance should not be paid for a required lenght of time. Think of it this way, what exactly are you teaching your children, how to be feeloaders and poor me people.
Keep informing those who want to be former spouses with your blog but tell them the truth. You are using their situation to sell you book full of untruths and lies.
There is no federal law that automatically entitles a former spouse to a portion of a member’s retired pay. (From DFAS)
Start by telling the truth and then go from there. If you can prove you deserve it then I will be all for you. Where is your proof and justification for what you have done to those who serve, continue to serve and are willing to die even for former spouses?
Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts. You are probably unaware, but you have left two comments that do not meet our comment policy. To ensure we can continue to have your ideas post timely, please review the policy here.
Aside from the opinions you stated, perhaps you can expand more on your comment “the Pa. law will make former spouses have to prove that mrp is not a wage and they deserve it for some explicit reason.”
Since this is not in the verbiage of HB1192, do you have some references or was this something mentioned at the meeting?
We also have yet to hear about who, if anyone, spoke up against the bill?
Debbie, there are numerous organizations that support and advocate for former spouses including, the American Bar Association and other highly influential lobbying groups. It’s actually military members who are underrepresented. As for your claim about the inability to build any retirement of your own while you were married to a service member – the stock market, IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, mutual and index funds have been around for decades and are readily available avenues for military spouses to utilize as a way of securing their own retirement funds.
I am a former spouse who testified on HB 1192 at the Policy Committee Hearing because I am adamantly opposed to the USFSPA. Further, I personally declined to take a portion of MRP at my divorce. I did not take it because I believe it to be an unfair distribution of a veteran’s earnings. And, as the current spouse of a retired divorced veteran, I am now impacted by the USFSPA. Therefore, I have “Been there – done that.”
Spouses, the majority being women, want their cake and eat it too. They want equality in the work force; they are given job preferences, can and do work outside the home full time and then claim that they “earned” a share of the military retainer pay. Just what are the “rights of military spouses” that need protecting any more than a civilian spouse? Why a USFSPA? Military spouses take a marriage vow, but they do not take an oath to serve their country and offer up their life!
Thanks for sharing your situation and thoughts.
I’m sure our readers (service members and military spouses) would also like to hear from the opposing side — arguments against HB1192 — or was there no one present to express a different viewpoint?
At the beginning of your blog post, you stated, “House Bill 1192 was introduced by Representative Jaret Gibbons on February 14, 2013”. If YOU had been paying attention (Given the topic of your blog, I’d assume you’d want to stay informed) you could have been following this bill and all related activities and actions on it, since February. So, now you want to complain because no one “notified” you of this meeting?? It’s not like it was some big secret. All governmental dealings are public and Pennsylvania is no exception. Pay more attention, next time and stay informed. In addition, the above poster is correct. The bill does NOT propose to “change the USFSPA” as it cannot do so. The USFSPA is a FEDERAL law. This bill proposes to change Section 3502 of Title 23 of The Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.
Bullseye, Jessica !
You go Girl !
Tell the UNeducated who failed Civics in 6th grade !
Seriously, I think she needs to re-watch “How a Bill Becomes a Law” on Schoolhouse Rock!
“The bill proposes a USFSPA change….” –
A state legislature can NOT change a federal law ! ! !