The husband cannot, by his voluntary act of changing the plan under which he will receive his post-military service payments, divest the wife of her rights as contemplated under the 1990 order. The court rejected the husband's argument that the doctrine of federal preemption precluded equitable distribution of the VSI payments. We are unaware of any federal statute which expressly excludes early discharge incentive pay from state equitable distribution. Had Congress intended to exclude early separation incentive pay from state apportionment laws, it easily could have done so. Moreover, the court noted, literature distributed by the Department of Defense explaining the VSI and SSB programs states that the treatment of these benefits upon divorce is not dictated by federal law and instead must be decided by state courts.
Severance payments are one thing and retirement benefits are quite another.
Further, the VSI payments could not be classified as marital because by statute property acquired after an order of separate maintenance or an order approving a marital settlement agreement is nonmarital. The payments represent income only. The first book that gives women the support and guidance they need to safeguard their marital assets. Too often women find themselves at a disadvantage when their marriage ends.