Why Review Failed USFSPA Proposals?
Why Review Failed USFSPA Proposals?
In looking at prior proposals to change the USFSPA, we can learn not only how other people view military retainer pay, but also why certain proposed changes failed to pass.
By viewing legislation, legal discussions, blogs, and other media, our understanding of the complexities behind military divorce will grow. It is through this understanding that we help our representatives make improvements to the USFSPA.
Oklahoma’s history on proposed USFSPA changes:
Introduced in 2011:
- The Military Retainer Pay Protection Act
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 528 proposed Mar, 2011 for effective date November 2011.
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 528 Failed to Pass
- The Wounded Warrior Protection Act
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 917 Failed to Pass
2009-2010 Oklahoma USFSPA Change Proposals
- Oklahoma House Bill 1053, First Session Draft
with proposed effective date of November 1, 2009. Failed to Pass - Oklahoma House Bill 1053, Second Session Draft
proposed Mar, 2010 for effective date November 1, 2010. Failed to Pass
4 Comments
The REAL reason why the “OKIE” bills failed is because there is CORRUPTION with the OBA and the OK State legislators – this has been PROVEN by Freedom of Info requests – so it’s not an unproven allegation !
The new retirement programs the military is contemplating will be interesting when looking at USFSPA. Specifically: Serve 20 years but do not receive any retirement payments until the service member reaches 58 or even 65 years old. That is going to have an impact on the gold diggers.
29 Sep 2011
There is a new petition to the Obama administration to: eliminate the permanent division of retention/retirement pay of members of the Uniformed Services in a divorce The permanent division of retention/retirement pay of members of the Uniformed Services in a divorce as property under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1408, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, PL 97-252, is inconsistent with prevalent family law concepts, unfairly singles out personnel of the uniformed services for unequal treatment of a divorce, is discriminatory on its face and in impact, is inconsistent with other federal laws, violates the constitutional concepts of federalism, and unconstitutionally interferes with Presidential and Congressional duties to provide for the Armed Forces. Such action by the President and Congress will reestablish the proper legal precedent as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 US 210 (1981).
WE MUST ACCUMULATE 5000+ SIGNATURES BY 22 OCTOBER 2011 TO TRIGGER IMMEDIATE PRESIDENTIAL ACTION. IF THE GOAL IS REACHED BY THAT DATE EVERY SIGNER WILL RECEIVE A WRITTEN RESPONSE OUTLINING WHAT ACTION THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE WILL TAKE REGARDING THE ISSUE. PLEASE SIGN THE SECOND PETITION BEFORE THE 22ND
You have to create an account then look for the USFSPA act. Remember we need 4000 more signatures by October 22, 2011, let’s get this important information out to all our brothers and sisters. This is unfair treatment of military members who gave everything for their country.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/eliminate-permanent-division-retentionretirement-pay-members-uniformed-services-divorce/F3YCjMKy?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
V/R,
Johnny S. Bryson
@Johnny Bryson, Thank you for providing information about current initiatives to change the USFSPA. Due to every marriage having unique circumstances, I would NOT encourage others to support/sign this petition. The wording is too vague, appears to remove judges’ power to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis, and has no explanation of how connected former military spouse benefits might be handled. Unless the verbiage is revised, this petition may end up as one more failed USFSPA proposal for change.