One, don’t marry the stripper. Two, stay single until you have less then 10 years left in service to retire. Three, don’t marry someone that’s only aspiring to be a homemaker. And last, if you’re caught in this trap…just get out of the service to cancel the ex rights to the retirement..then secretly get a gov job and buy back your service time for retirement as a gov employee.

@MiklRngr

Ай бұрын

Generally, you cannot make choices that will create an event where the former spouse is not paid. By buying back your service time you may increase the former spouse's payments by commingling it with your now gov employee benefits.

@thevet2009

Ай бұрын

@@MiklRngr Ranger, not disagreeing...but there's always choices to influence a successful mission, like in the ranger handbook, always use the METT-TC method.

@MiklRngr

Ай бұрын

@@thevet2009 I have read a LOT of case law on this issue. I am simply saying that the likelihood of prevailing on the issue of cutting out a former spouse by shenanigans is usually forestalled by the QDRO. If you don't have a QDRO then you can do all sorts of things. But most QDROs are boilerplate and this "technique" is prohibited by virtue of that language. YMMV.

@thevet2009

Ай бұрын

@@MiklRngr Interesting sandtable exercise on QDRO. I see this following question/answer on a QDRO site: Can I Protect My Retirement Savings in a Divorce? If the retirement account holder wants to hang onto the full amount in a pension or retirement plan, they could offer the ex-spouse an equal amount of other assets. Now let's say the soldier gives up his military career before retirement... I would think there is no tangible asset to be divided since it has not been earned yet. Sort of like an FPF before a tactical withdrawal. As there's always time later to recoup your time and apply it to federal service.

@MiklRngr

Ай бұрын

@@thevet2009 It is not based on when you end your military career, it is based on when the divorce occurs. If the spouse has already met the 10/10 rule then there is a 99.99% chance that there is a QDRO in place. Those QDROs address just such a case where a military career is ended intentionally by the service member. If the SM then entered civil service and rolled in those years of military service, the retiree will still have to pay the former spouse. What happens if the SM ended at say, 19 years and just did not elect to take a retirement or roll the service into civil service? Well, to be honest with you, I am not entirely sure. I would suggest that the former spouse would sue to be paid what they would have gotten even if the SM receives nothing to pay the former spouse with. This does not seem right, but it will depend on the court that retains jurisdiction over the divorce. I would estimate that there would be a better than even chance the non-retiree will owe the former spouse money. This is called "indemnification".

I like to reward bad behavior with cash and prizes.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

Your judge feels the same way.

I knew one female retiree paying a louse ex husband. He was one of those men who leeeched off women and never worked. ..but she picked him. I think they met when he was in the military but he got an OTH. She still had to pay him. It's rare but it happens.

@the_bureaucrat

21 күн бұрын

I don't think people realize that those kinds of situations can crop up.

@BayonetRed

15 күн бұрын

Love it, a win for men. I kinda doubt your story though, a serious women, esp one that retired from the army wont put up with that.....she kept him around that long? Come on

@barbaramatthews4735

15 күн бұрын

@BayonetRed It only has to be 10 years. They were in together for part of it. He was already an ex by the time she retired. I can't remember why he got booted out. I think it had to do with poor performance and AWOL/UA. Afterward, she finally gave up, trying to save him. Some women like bad boys and want to change them. There was a deployment somewhere before or during the divorce. It was messy... and about 30 years ago, so my memory isn't too sharp. I wasn't all that close to them.

Oh come on! Do the next one. Do USFSPA and CRSC that is non taxable to service member and thus not disposable pay and thus no DFAS payments directly to former spouse. We want more!

@the_bureaucrat

29 күн бұрын

@MiklRngr, I feel like you know more about this than I do...

@MiklRngr

29 күн бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat perhaps I may KNOW more but I expect you UNDERSTAND more. You are, after-all, The Bureaucrat!

One of my best buddies wife got caught cheating on him, got divorced. So she is still getting half of his retirement check for over the last 25 plus years.

@the_bureaucrat

23 күн бұрын

Sad.

It's absolutely disgusting that a women who never set a foot in a combat zone, never was shot at, never driven on a road filled with IEDs, never had to report at zero dark thirty for PT can get half of a soldiers retirement. The law needs to be updated, things have changed, women are ALL stunning, brave and don't need no man's paycheck. Good thing I got rid of my liability in the 90s.

@the_bureaucrat

14 күн бұрын

Take it a bit further...that hypothetical woman can get half of his disability.

@BayonetRed

14 күн бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat they can't get any of the soldiers disability

I have found by living vicariously through the misery of others...Wife #1 = Jackpot, Wife (1+X) = trolled.

@the_bureaucrat

29 күн бұрын

Are you suggesting that limiting your lifetime quantity of wives to 1 is the key to sucess?

@beetlefang

29 күн бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat I agree that limiting the quantity of wives to 1 is the key to success. Wives (1+x seem) to receive little in the way of benefits once their DoD spouse passes or moves on to wife (2+x).

TLDR: don't get married, there is no upside to it at all today. Date, do not let them move in, do not baby them up, and when they get tired of you not willing to commit, trade them in on a newer, younger model, rinse and repeat.

@the_bureaucrat

24 күн бұрын

That seems to be the trend.

Never sign that wicked marriage contract. The states are withholding a lot of information at the time of signing, which is a violation of contract law. Every married man in the USA should be filling a case in Federal court over this.

@the_bureaucrat

24 күн бұрын

It's like when I download an app. There is a lot of stuff in those "terms and conditions"

@user-ps6gu5xo4k

24 күн бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat The difference is that the state never gave you those terms and conditions at the time of signing the marriage contract. This makes the contract null and void.

Hmmmm..... my solution..... "It is cheaper to keep her."

@the_bureaucrat

26 күн бұрын

Me too. Making a marriage work is hard. Divorce is hard and expensive. The grass is greenest where you water it.

@BayonetRed

15 күн бұрын

You do realize women initiate divorce 70% of the time.

@BayonetRed

15 күн бұрын

​@@the_bureaucratyou do realize women initiate divorce 70% of the time.

The key phrase is "10 years". Don't be married 10 years.

@thevet2009

Ай бұрын

Exactly...glad somebody gets it.

@the_bureaucrat

29 күн бұрын

That is a fascinating thought. If your marriage is falling apart as you approach that 10 by 10 point, be careful about delaying the inevitable with counseling and trial separations.

@airborneranger-ret

29 күн бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat Ok, this is where legal consultation becomes important. My marriage clock stopped at under 2 years rather than 10 because I filed for separation & reconciliation before the 2 year mark. Ex simply would not seriously attempt reconciliation