USFSPA NEWS
March 15, 2007

USFSPA NEWS

A bill signed into law by the U.S. Congress is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court for determination of its constitutionality. The problem incurred regarding the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) is that the law was to be applied and upheld by individual states. Therefore, legal confrontation with this law must start at the state level and work its way through the wickets until it reaches the US Supreme Court for final determination on its constitutionality. The fact that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the chance the hear this case is in line with the way our legal system is constructed. Overturning a law is not an easy task, and having the courts determine the constitutionality of a law is even more difficult.

Secondly, the diatribe you offer Doris Mozley in this article is sniping at best, and, your efforts to give her a platform, shows a willful disobedience of your own paper's mission statement; "To deliver the best news and information, quickly, and fairly, through integrity and experience." Granted, you gave Jonathan Katz (one of the lawyers) a chance to address the particulars of the case, but to allow Ms Mozley her commentary, (i.e., "They've been told by several courts now that the [law] is constitutional. They're selfish.") is an abomination to your profession.

This law was initially created under the guise that former spouses were suffering a substantial loss of income and status because of our “throw away marital” society. When some of our elected officials initially heard these stories of recently retired officers filing for divorce from long time spouses, they immediately took action. The problem was (and still is to some extent) that members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not give a fair and impartial hearing on the matter.

Instead, members of Congress decided to bus in (literally) hundreds of disgruntled former spouses of military members for a hearing on the matter. Additionally, members of this same congressional committee refused to allow members from the other side of the discussion (i.e., Air Force Sergeants Association [AFSA], Air Force Association [AFA], The Retired Officer Association [TROA] now Military Officer Association of America [MOAA], etc.) to present their cases and findings.

The fact that service men and women affected by this law are finally on the threshold of being heard in the highest court is a stunning, and long overdue, accomplishment. Retirees are well aware of other federal and local government agencies’ members having to abide by the division of retirement benefits upon divorce; however, we are also aware that the laws governing that division of pay for those agencies specifically stipulates that a former spouse who remarries loses their entitlement to continued retirement payments. Could Ms Mozley’s interests and opinions be jaded by her complete understanding that the law she wants to keep in place could change to something more fair and impartial? In other words, my exemplary and well documented service should not constitute automatic entitlement payments to a former spouse simply because they were married to me for a brief period. This would mean that the application of the USFSPA is nothing more than a welfare payment. As if we needed another government program telling us who we need to give our money to this week!

Our concern is multi-faceted and egregiously misrepresented in the press. You are maliciously creating an argument for the equality and justice of a law that you do not understand completely nor are willing to represent properly in your paper. My suggestion is that you offer the military lobbying organizations of AFSA, AFA, and MOAA the same opportunity of presenting their individual cases concerning this matter. They have hundreds of stories concerning this matter to include the male spouse abuser of a female officer who now serves time in jail while her retirement checks go to him! Maybe you’ve already heard of the woman who is on her 5^th military husband and is currently receiving retirement checks from her 4 previous husbands!

Giving one lobbying organization (the Committee for Equality and Justice for the Military Wife) an uncontested forum in your paper makes your professional integrity questionable and your paper nothing more than a military version of the National Enquirer. Half truths on the issue, and the opportunity presented for the aggrandizement of seemingly impartial parties in this arena, produce nothing more than contempt for those who perpetuate these deceptions. Let’s see if from now on you can, “… deliver the best news and information, quickly, and fairly, through integrity and experience." Your jury is currently out, Ms Jowers (kjowers@MilitaryTimes.com).