Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) & Oklahoma SB 1951
Oklahoma SB 1951 introduced February 6, 2012, is already amended (February 27, 2012), specifically stating that hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay, and combat pay will be included for computations for alimony or child support.
This is an improvement in the bill.
OK SB1951 CRSC Recommendations at a Glance
- Add CRSC pay to page two lines 12 through 14.
- Remove the definition of CRSRC
- Remove all references to CRSC property awards (add the issue to SB1887)
- Discuss the wording for CRSC in SB 1887
1: Add CRSC to Support Computations
CRSC pay should be included (added to the wording) for computation of alimony and child support.
The reasoning is a reference from Military.com FAQ on CRSC:
“Are CRSC payments subject to garnishment?
Yes, CRSC entitlements are subject to garnishment action for alimony and child support.”
2 & 3: CRSC Definition and Property Division Proposals
The amended SB1951 also changed wording concerning alimony computation:
In no event shall an award of alimony payments, whether designated for support or for property division, be based on CRSC as defined in paragraph 1 of subsection H of Section 118B of this title.
My immediate reaction is similar to my previous post concerning Oklahoma SB 1951 mixing support and property. I would suggest discussing all property issues in SB1887 and thus, an immediate amendment to read:
In no event shall an award of alimony payments, whether designated for support or for property division, be based on CRSC as defined in paragraph 1 of subsection H of Section 118B of this title.
Then, I would suggest further discussion concerning alimony and child support since CRSC can be garnished (as mentioned above).
Removing the definitions of CRSC from all areas of the bill is advisable since federal rules defining CRSC eligibility have already changed three times per a DOD Memo and the goal should be, whatever decision is made concerning CRSC — let’s have it apply to everyone from this point forward.
4: CRSC and Military Divorce
All discussion of CRSC as property belongs in Oklahoma Senate Bill 1887.
What remains to be addressed is: will Oklahoma try to prevent division of Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) as property?
CRSC may be divided. according to Military.com FAQ on CRSC:
“Are CRSC payments subject to a court-ordered division of pay that is payable to a former spouse?
CRSC is considered special compensation and therefore not subject to the rules and regulations governing military retired pay, including court-ordered division of pay. However, if the former spouse returns to court and obtains a new order, the CRSC may be divided.”
Read the U.S. Code on CRSC.
You can follow the amended versions of SB 1951. (Click on the tab that says versions.)
I’m all in favor of ex-spouses getting a share of the disabled military member’s VA and CRSC disability pay – with ONE caveat – the ex-spouse must first check into a hospital and undergo surgery that will result in their having the same disability as the military member. Kind of biblical when you look at it that way “an eye for an eye…”
It never ceases to amaze me, that so many spouses go after the service members with claws, thinking that as a spouse they have gone through combat as did the troop receiving CRSC. The author is just another bitter ex-spouse, and is only concerned with sticking it to the soldier.
The writers in this forum can agree on many issues of “pain” associated with military service, and the often pathetic and inconsistent care delivered by the VA. And the costs of going to war, the inherent basis for CRSC, is something the spouse’s angst can in no way be considered “equal.”
Is some basis for support, i.e., alimony, child support proper? Yes, I believe so, but that’s not the same thing as dividing CRSC to pay for it. If the service member cannot manage on their current retirment and CRSC, then the spouse should not take from the one who earned it. If there are other funds, other properties involved, that’s another issue entirely, but for the author to make a claim upon it is specious, mean-spirited, and just plain greedy.