BNUMBER:  B-261169
DATE:  November 21, 1995
TITLE:  Chief Master Sergeant Roland L. Goad, USAF (Retired)

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Chief Master Sergeant Roland L. Goad, USAF (Retired)

File:     B-261169

Date:     November 21, 1995

DIGEST

1.  When the former spouse of a retired member properly requests from 
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) direct payment of a 
portion of the member's retired pay and presents a court order 
requiring such payment which is valid on its face, DFAS is required to 
honor the request under 10 U.S.C.  1408.  The member's claim for a 
halt to the direct payments and refund of amounts already paid to the 
spouse is denied.

2.  Court-ordered sanctions cannot be withheld from the retired pay of 
a military member when the amounts collected cannot be considered a 
debt to the government.

DECISION

This is in response to two submissions regarding the retired pay of 
Chief Master Sergeant Roland L. Goad, USAF (Retired).  The first is an 
appeal by Sergeant Goad of a Claims Group settlement which denied his 
claim for termination of direct payment of a portion of his retired 
pay to his former spouse by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
(DFAS) and refund of amounts already paid.  The second is a request by 
DFAS for an advance decision regarding the propriety of paying $400 
per month from Sergeant Goad's retired pay to a Federal District Court 
clerk in accordance with a court order.[1]  Direct payment of a 
portion of Sergeant Goad's retired pay to his former spouse is proper, 
but DFAS may not comply with the federal court order to deduct 
sanctions from his retired pay.

Sergeant Goad and his former spouse were married in 1950.  He retired 
from the Air Force in 1974, and upon their divorce in 1980, Mrs. Goad 
was awarded 12/27, or 44.4 percent, of Sergeant Goad's retired pay.  
In 1985, Mrs. Goad applied to DFAS for direct payment of her share 
under 10 U.S.C.  1408, and her application was approved.  Sergeant 
Goad presented to DFAS his arguments against the direct payments, 
among them his contention that the payments constituted an illegal 
garnishment of his retired pay.  The Claims Group reviewed Sergeant 
Goad's arguments and denied his claim, and he has appealed their 
denial.

Sergeant Goad also filed numerous lawsuits in state and federal court 
in connection with Mrs. Goad's entitlement to a portion of his retired 
pay and DFAS's direct payment of it.  Sanctions were imposed on him in 
both state and federal court for filing frivolous suits.  In Goad v. 
Rollins, 921 F.2d 69 (1991), the Fifth Circuit of the United States 
Court of Appeals imposed sanctions on Sergeant Goad in accordance with 
rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which pertains to 
the filing of frivolous appeals.  Sanctions to reimburse 22 defendants 
for their legal expenses in District Court totalled over $122,000.  To 
collect that amount, the judge ordered that $400 per month be deducted 
from Sergeant Goad's retired pay and remitted to the Clerk of the 
Federal District Court.  DFAS has submitted to us the question of 
whether such deductions are proper.

With regard to Sergeant Goad's appeal, under 10 U.S.C.  1408, a court 
may, subject to certain limitations, treat military retired pay as the 
property of the member or as the property of the member and his spouse 
in accordance with applicable state law.  A former spouse who is 
awarded a portion of a member's retired pay may request direct payment 
of that portion by DFAS.  If the spouse meets the requirements of the 
statute and submits a court order which is valid on its face, DFAS is 
to honor the request.

In the present situation, direct payment of a portion of Sergeant 
Goad's retired pay to his former spouse is proper.  It appears from 
the record that DFAS properly honored Mrs. Goad's request under 10 
U.S.C.  1408, after determining that the court order which awarded 
her 12/27 of Sergeant Goad's retired pay was valid on its face.  We 
find no merit in Sergeant Goad's objections to the direct payments.  
Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals has rejected his 
arguments, and the Supreme Court has refused to disturb that action.

As to the court-ordered sanctions, withholding of retired pay to 
enforce the court-ordered sanctions against Sergeant Goad would 
constitute a garnishment of his retired pay.  The United States has 
waived its sovereign immunity so as to allow the garnishment of 
federal employees' pay only in limited circumstances.  Since the 
amounts ordered to be collected to enforce the sanctions are 
ultimately to be paid to private individuals, we do not view them as a 
debt owed to the government; therefore, they cannot be collected under 
5 U.S.C.  5514 or 31 U.S.C.  3716, which pertain to administrative 
setoffs of debts.  As debts to private parties, they cannot be 
withheld under 5 U.S.C.  5520a, which provides for garnishment of 
government employees' pay to satisfy debts owed to individuals, 
because retired military members are excluded from  5520a under 
interim regulations of the Department of Defense which we have no 
reason to question.  See Indebtedness of Military Personnel, 59 Fed. 
Reg. 21,714, 21,715 (1994).  We are aware of no provisions under which 
the court-ordered sanctions against Sergeant Goad can be withheld.

Sergeant Goad's retired pay should be handled accordingly.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. DFAS has assigned control number 95-2-M to its request.