If the 25-year-old law that allows state courts to divide military retired pay as marital property in divorce settlements needs reform, as many service members and retirees contend, it won't occur through a court challenge.

The Supreme Court made that clear again last month when it denied the petition of 58 divorced retirees to review their arguments on appeal from a loss at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va.

The dispute about the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act now shifts back to Congress, which has been arid soil for seeds of change. Some retirees are determined to find a senator willing to try to attach ex-spouse law amendments to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill when it comes up for floor debate next week.

The Defense Department released a comprehensive review of the USFSPA in 2001 and continues to stand behind its recommendations. (The report is available at www.defenselink.mil/prhome/docs/finalrpt.pdf.) The more substantive changes for divorced retirees, however, would affect only future divorce settlements. The Pentagon urges that they not apply to settled cases.

Perhaps the biggest one would ensure that a former spouse's share of retired pay be based on the service member's rank and years of service at time of divorce, blocking any "windfall" boost for ex-spouses from promotions earned and years served by the member after the divorce.

Defense officials have gone beyond the 2001 report with some recent recommendations to Congress. One would amend the USFSPA to stop state divorce courts from, in effect, ordering members with 20 or more years of service to divide their retired pay with their ex-spouses before they actually retire.

Such rulings, defense officials argue, can impact readiness by forcing experienced personnel to cut short their careers.

Defense officials this year urged 11 changes to USFSPA, some to benefit former spouses and some to help retirees in future divorce cases. The entire package was ignored by the House and Senate armed services committees in marking up their versions of the 2008 defense bill.

Meanwhile, a group of divorced retirees saw a disappointing end to its three-year-old lawsuit, Adkins et al v. Gates, which challenged the constitutionality of the USFSPA from several angles.

The suit argued that the USFSPA is unconstitutional because: It was applied retroactively to divorced members who entered service before its enactment; it violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against military retirees in several ways; and its mechanism for garnishing retired pay has insufficient procedural safeguards.

A federal district court rejected the arguments in October 2005, and that lower court's decision was upheld by the appeals court last fall. The Supreme Court declined to review the case June 18.

To comment, send e-mail to milupdate@aol.com, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111 or visit www.militaryupdate.com.