Colleen M. Timpano

[USN - Retired]

TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. TIMPANO
HOSPITALMAN, FIRST CLASS
U.S. Navy (Retired)
before the
HOUSE VETERANS’ AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
5 AUGUST 1998

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Colleen Timpano. I am a retired Hospitalman, First Class, U.S. Navy, having served my country honorably for 20 years between 1974 and 1994. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the need for the reform of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act which has indentured me, for life, to my former husband.

The Navy never told me that a divorce court judge could take 30 percent of my retired pay and give it someone who contributed absolutely nothing to my career. Indeed, my former husband’s use of drugs, which resulted in his involuntary discharge from the Navy, was a continuous threat to my career as well as an onerous burden on our family. Now I find myself providing him with the Navy retired pay which was denied to him because of his personal conduct. In my view, this is a serious breach of faith by Congress and the Navy which will degrade the quality of my life until I die. I have been deprived of the equal justice under law guaranteed me by the Constitution.

In 1979 I married a former male shipmate who already had two children from a previous marriage and, as I soon discovered, a drug problem. Although we both knew, by the end of the first year, that our marriage was a ‘shaky’ one, we tried to make it work and, in 1982, had a child of our own which made us a family of five. My husband was no longer in the Navy and I had to balance my time between a demanding career and the dysfunctional personal life of a domineering and controlling husband. Any impact my husband had on my career was negative, not positive. There were several career-related, after work activities which I had to attend. I went alone because he was not interested in them. I was the principal wage earner of the family and paid most of the living expenses and, at the same time, was helping finance his college education and a few ill-fated business ventures.

I continued with my Navy career, which involved several changes of duty stations. Moving created problems because my husband was always an unwilling participant. I wound up taking ‘moon lighting’ jobs in order to make up for his unwillingness to bear a fair share of the load. All of this created problems for our children so that part of my time had to be devoted to trying to keep them squared away. This imposed great physical as well as mental stress.

I will spare you the account of my husband’s conduct throughout except to say that it involved sporadic employment, extra-martial affairs, drug use and jail. In retrospect, I should have ended the marriage long before I did, but my hope that things would get better, concern for the children and the inability to see a financially-sound way out kept me in what was, literally, bondage.

I reenlisted for the last time in 1991, by which time my husband and I were living apart and he was pressuring me for a formal separation, but not a divorce. By this time, one of my adopted children had developed a serious drug addiction problem which required rehabilitation. I continued to live alone with my daughter.

As I approached the 20-year retirement option point, I thought I finally saw a way out and decided to end my marriage. To my surprise, the Navy had no interest in helping or advising me. On the contrary, they helped my husband prepare a separation agreement based on the final decree from his previous divorce and by arguing to me that I should come out of the divorce in good shape. The quality of that advice is indicated by my final divorce decree which awarded my ex-husband 30 percent of my retired pay for life. In addition, I was left with the burden of child support without any payments from ex-husband. Such costs are expected to be covered by the aforementioned 30 percent of my retired pay which I will keep until our daughter reaches her majority. After that, it will be paid to my ex-husband and his third wife for the rest of his life or mine. I am attending college in order to prepare myself for a future without all the retired pay I expected to get. My daughter and I are living below the poverty level in my mother’s home. I still have to figure out how to educate my daughter while continuing to provide limited support to our other two (adopted) children who are getting no support from their father who remarried again in 1996.

The irony of all this is that my ex-husband will be getting Navy retired pay when he disqualified himself from earning it by his personal conduct. He is now in his third marriage so part of my retired pay will be going to support that marriage. If I commit a felony, under current laws and regulations applying to retirees, my retired pay will stop. On the other had, he can commit as many felonies as he likes and still continue to receive my retired pay. Under current law, I have to remain available for recall to active duty and must remain in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. My ex-husband is exempt from both of these constraints. Is this equal justice under law?

I suspect that the sponsors of the USFSPA didn’t think much about the enlisted side of the military when they enacted the law. While some officers may have the financial resources and professional capabilities to survive after a divorce, these attributes appear far less frequently in the enlisted community. The loss of retired pay is a catastrophe which vitiates against a satisfactory life after divorce and can grievously injure a second family or rule one out altogether. I wonder, also, if the sponsors of the law ever thought about female military members. There is only one pronoun in the law, used to describe the ownership of retired pay. The pronoun is "his" and it appears five times. What do you think would have happened had I told the judge, during my divorce hearing, that the law, clearly, covered only "his" retired pay and not "hers" (or mine)?

I have checked my dictionary for the definition of "property" which is the word used in the statute to describe my retired pay. If it were, indeed, "property," I should be able to barter it, sell it, assign it, or leave it to my heirs. It would not cease to exist if I die as does my retired pay. Moreover, when it is classified as "property" how can the IRS continue to tax it as "income"? It appears that military members are the only U.S. citizens who have their retired pay classified in accordance with what the government wants to do with it (i.e. award it to an ex-spouse as "property" or collect tax on it as "income"). Is this equal justice under law?

I am informed that the ex-spouses of military members have available to them, in divorce court, all remedies available to the ex-spouse of any other American citizen. Why, then, not take into account and, in a military divorce, award child support, alimony and a share of tangible assets of the marriage instead of a trumped up "property award" which requires lifetime payments, whether or not the benefiting ex-spouse remarries? One of the principles which has always applied to spousal support in this country is that it comes from the present marital mate. Why should the first spouse foot the bills for all subsequent marriages of their ex-spouse?

I have heard the argument that the spouse of a military member ‘serves, just like their military mate.’ My ex-spouse certainly didn’t and, in fact, failed to meet his commitment to serve after enlistment. Yet he is being actually rewarded for his misconduct and I am charged with supporting any of his marriages subsequent to ours. If his contribution to national security is, indeed so important as the law implies, why shouldn’t the government reimburse him for his "good and faithful service" and not draw from what I earned in my own right? Even then there should be some distinction between what was earned in a hospital operating room versus smoking a ‘joint’ in the street. The stereotype of the stay-at-home, tend-to the-kids spouse has been supplanted by the spouses of the 1990’s, over 60 percent of whom are employed outside the home. Much of this self-sufficiency certainly must extend beyond divorce court, and the quality of life for the ex-spouse of a military members is frequently enhanced by the combination of their income, the income of the subsequent spouse(s) and a share of the retired pay of the military member.

On the other hand, the divorce military member often faces a life where the government’s reward for his or her contribution to national security is deprivation of the retired pay offered as an inducement to serve. If that member is enlisted, there may not exist even the wherewithal needed to appeal a bad decision, not to mention the resources needed to rejoin the world and start a second family.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the military services are having problems with recruitment and retention. Certainly the government’s treatment of divorcing military members is not the ONLY reason for this. It may, however, be ONE of the reasons. If I were to advise a young person considering a military career, I would counsel against it…not because of what has happened to me but for what the USFSPA represents as a breach of faith by Congress. If Congress expects young people to continue to rally to the national colors, then it must keep its promises.

Military members deserve to be treated, in divorce court, just like any other American citizen. That can never happen so long as the USFSPA continues to exist in its present form. It appears that, in response to feminist pressures, Congress forgot that some military members are women. Their numbers are growing. It is time to level the playing field in the divorce arena. Adherence to the principle of equal justice under law will get you there. In this context, I urge you to support the ARA’s advocacy of fairness and equity for BOTH partners of any military marriage which ends in divorce. Congress can do this by getting on with the business of reforming the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.

CURRICULUM VITAE
Colleen M. Timpano
HOSPITALMAN, FIRST CLASS
U.S. Navy (Retired)

Colleen Timpano served honorably in the U.S. Navy from 1974 until 1994. In 1979 she married Peter L. Timpano who had received a general discharge from the Navy because of drug abuse. Peter brought two children from a previous marriage into the union and Colleen and Peter had a daughter of their own in 1982.

The marriage was a tempestuous one from the start. Colleen had to balance her time between a demanding professional career and the dysfunctional personal life of a domineering and controlling husband whose conduct involved sporadic employment, extra-martial affairs, drug use and jail. In 1991, the couple ceased living together and thereafter lived apart: Peter with his two children and Colleen with the daughter of their marriage. Discussions of legal separation initiated at this time eventuated to a final divorce decree from the Navy in Florida in December, 1994. Colleen retired from the Navy in June 1994.

The divorce decree provided shared parental responsibility for the (then) two minor children, with Peter charged with primary residential care for his daughter, Jessica and Colleen for their daughter, Erica. Citing the USFSPA as authority, the court awarded Peter 12/20ths of the 50 percent, or 30 percent, of Colleen’s disposable retired pay to which rights were waived until Erica graduates from High School or reaches the age of 19, whichever comes first. Neither parent was ordered to provide child support payments per se.

Peter entered his third marriage in June, 1996, and will commence receiving 30 percent of Colleen’s military retired pay when the obligation to Erica is fulfilled.

Colleen appears before the Hearings of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee on 5 August, 1998 as a private citizen.

[CrustySMSgt]

Not sure how members of Congress can hear that and think, "Makes sense to me; let's keep the Act."

[CrustySMSgt]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

She stayed with the man for 12 years and makes it seem like she was the victim. By the end of the first year of the marriage she new what he was like. It's not the Navy's fault. She got what she deserved. That's my opinion.

lol... ahhhh, to be young again.

Some people beleive you should actually (attempt to) work through marriage issues... if everyone hit a road block and punched, what would be the point of getting married in the first place? Granted, it seems like she toughed it out for longer than most would... but the reality is, even if they divorced at 5-10 years, the court could still award whatever they determine to be a fair amount.

And the Navy has nothing to do with it, this is a federal act ruled on by local courts.

[CrustySMSgt]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

A drug addicted, dysfunctional, domineering, and controlling husband in my opinion is more then a "road block" or a "marriage issue". It's a red flag saying "bail out before it's to late". Turned out to be to late 12 years later, 15 if you count the legal years of marriage before the divorce.

And are you familiar the 10/10 rule of the USFSPA?

And I meant to say State not Navy. It's not the States fault.

I'm familiar with the entire act... all the 10/10ths rule affects is whether the spouse can directly petition DFAS to garnish the pay. There is no minimum length of marriage for the court to award a portion of retirement.

I guess I'm another dumb-ass who tried for too long to make things work with a materialistic, self-centered, self-esteem issue, cheating wife who bitched about being fat, yet proceeded to gain 150 pounts over the course of a 13 year marriage... and then when she was refused for Tricare paying for gastric bypass because she was 25 pounds under where they thought it would be required, came up with the plan to gain the extra 25 pounds instead of getting off her ass and doing something about it... like not drinking and eating and exercising once in awhile. In hindsight, I should have kicked her to the curb MUCH earlier... but I guess I was too busy being a good husband and trying to make it work. My bad.

[CVal]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

A drug addicted, dysfunctional, domineering, and controlling husband in my opinion is more then a "road block" or a "marriage issue". It's a red flag saying "bail out before it's to late". Turned out to be to late 12 years later, 15 if you count the legal years of marriage before the divorce.

And are you familiar the 10/10 rule of the USFSPA?

And I meant to say State not Navy. It's not the States fault.

While each person is entitled to his/her own opinion on this subject, I would suggest, Deper, that you come back and comment on this post after you've been married for a while.

[USN - Retired]

Originally Posted by CrustySMSgt

In hindsight, I should have kicked her to the curb MUCH earlier... but I guess I was too busy being a good husband and trying to make it work. My bad.

No good deed goes unpunished.

[USN - Retired]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

A drug addicted, dysfunctional, domineering, and controlling husband in my opinion is more then a "road block" or a "marriage issue". It's a red flag saying "bail out before it's to late". Turned out to be to late 12 years later, 15 if you count the legal years of marriage before the divorce.

And are you familiar the 10/10 rule of the USFSPA?

And I meant to say State not Navy. It's not the States fault.

Colleen's attempt to save her marriage to Peter Timpano was definitely a mistake. But I don't understand why she should lose 30% of her military retirement pay for the rest of her life for that "mistake". I also don't understand how anyone could say that Peter Timpano deserves 30% of Colleen's retirement pay. Can anyone explain that to me?

Had Colleen divorced Peter after 5 to 10 years of marriage, she may have lost custody of their child because she was still on active duty in the Navy and Peter, for the most part, was not working. The stay at home parent is often the parent who gets custody. Additionally, Colleen would probably have had to pay child support and alimony to Peter. Colleen was in a no win situation.

One of my big problems with the former military spouse organizations that support USFSPA is that they probably see nothing wrong with Peter receiving 30% of Colleen's military retirement pay. Those former military spouse organizations are not fighting only for deserving ex-spouses who were in long term military marriages. They are also fighting for people like Peter. Those organizations are not fighting for justice, they are fighting for money.

Don't take too much comfort in the 10/10 rule. The ex-spouse organizations are working hard to have it elimintated. Even the DOD wants to eliminate it. Soon, ex-spouses will be able to directly petition DFAS to garnish military retirement pay regardless of the length of their marriage.

Colleen was married to Peter for 15 years. She has been divorced from Peter for 14 years. Every month, 30% of Colleen's military retirement pay still goes to Peter. It will end only when one of them is dead.

[TJMAC77SP]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

She stayed with the man for 12 years and makes it seem like she was the victim. By the end of the first year of the marriage she new what he was like. It's not the Navy's fault. She got what she deserved. That's my opinion.

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

A drug addicted, dysfunctional, domineering, and controlling husband in my opinion is more then a "road block" or a "marriage issue". It's a red flag saying "bail out before it's to late". Turned out to be to late 12 years later, 15 if you count the legal years of marriage before the divorce.

And are you familiar the 10/10 rule of the USFSPA?

And I meant to say State not Navy. It's not the States fault.

Another enlightened soul. At least your name is accurate.

I suppose you think the battered wife who doesn’t leave the marriage the first time drunken husband smacks her gets what she deserved as well?

All I can hope is that the karma of your comments teaches you a valuable lesson one day.

[TJMAC77SP]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

Do not place words into my mouth. What we are speaking about in this thread and what you assume I think are not the same.

And sense you bring it up, if the wife is going to stay with a person who beats her, then the blame is not all the a** holes that beats her. It takes two to tango. My father beat my mother daily, locked her in a room for more then half her marriage feeding her burnt food and water for years, pulled the trigger of a gun while I was in her womb it never went off. But still she stayed with him for 13 year's. Why would someone stay with another person that would treat them this way. I don't know. All I am saying is that you have no idea what I think and or feel. And trying to place words in my mouth or thoughts in my head that are not my own make you sound ignorant. So next time just don't push the submit button.

And this so called karma you take about, no such thing. If it is real then tell me why evil mean can rule the world for so long. And good people get the shit end of the stick always.

I never put words in your mouth. You reduced the complicated workings of failed marriages to an inane and specious comment. I called you on it. I still call you on it. You now try to further defend these insensitive and illogical comments with what you say are the experiences of your own mother (and yourself). You seem to have anger towards your mother when it was strictly the actions of your father that were evil. It is, in my opinion like blaming the rape victim for wearing provocative clothing. You obviously speak from the ignorant bliss of youth and inexperience. Your last question spells all that out for the readers.

[Your_Name_Here]

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

Do not place words into my mouth. What we are speaking about in this thread and what you assume I think are not the same.

And sense you bring it up, if the wife is going to stay with a person who beats her, then the blame is not all the a** holes that beats her. It takes two to tango. My father beat my mother daily, locked her in a room for more then half her marriage feeding her burnt food and water for years, pulled the trigger of a gun while I was in her womb it never went off. But still she stayed with him for 13 year's. Why would someone stay with another person that would treat them this way. I don't know. All I am saying is that you have no idea what I think and or feel. And trying to place words in my mouth or thoughts in my head that are not my own make you sound ignorant. So next time just don't push the submit button.

And this so called karma you take about, no such thing. If it is real then tell me why evil mean can rule the world for so long. And good people get the shit end of the stick always.

Originally Posted by Confused DEPer

A drug addicted, dysfunctional, domineering, and controlling husband in my opinion is more then a "road block" or a "marriage issue". It's a red flag saying "bail out before it's to late". Turned out to be to late 12 years later, 15 if you count the legal years of marriage before the divorce.

And are you familiar the 10/10 rule of the USFSPA?

And I meant to say State not Navy. It's not the States fault.

OK. Just to see if we're tracking here (and in ENTIRELY YOUR words above for comparison's sake):

If other people try to stick with a marriage infested with abuse, they are getting what they deserved, BUT...
If it's your MOM doing the same thing--she's a hero and the person whom no would-be girlfriend will ever measure up to.

Look, Jr. you can't have this both ways--which is it gonna be?

Oh, and spare me the "How dare you talk about my mom..." crap; (A)this isn't about her choices, but IS about YOUR flawed logic that speaks out of both sides of your mouth, (B) I don't even KNOW her, let alone have any beef w/her, (C) and anyway, she's a grown woman presumably capable of making her way as best she knows how--I won't fault her or anyone for a choice made in good faith.

As for Karma--oh yes, it exists, alright; it works on its OWN timetable though. EVERYONE gets theirs in the end--EVERYONE!