B-157707, SEPTEMBER 16, 1966, 46 COMP. GEN. 219

B-157707, SEPTEMBER 16, 1966, 46 COMP. GEN. 219

PAY - RETIRED - ANNUITY ELECTIONS FOR DEPENDENTS - TERMINATION - DIVORCE THE DIVORCE GRANTED A RETIRED ARMY OFFICER PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA BY THE SEOUL FAMILY COURT, WHERE THE DIVORCE DECREE LISTS THE ADDRESS OF HIS MOTHER AS HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS UNDER KOREAN CUSTOM AND TRADITION BECAUSE IT IS THE LOCATION OF HIS FAMILY HEADSHIP AND PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS MADE ON HIS WIFE, IS A VALID DIVORCE, AND THE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT WITHHELD FROM HIS RETIRED PAY TO PROVIDE AN ANNUITY UNDER THE RETIRED SERVICEMAN'S FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN, 10 U.S.C. 1431-1446, FOR THE WOMAN WHO WAS HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT.

TO COLONEL H. W. KASSERMAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1966:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 28, 1966, REQUESTING A DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY REFUND TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. ALLINGTON BRIDGMAN, JR; 081 965, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), AMOUNTS OF HIS RETIRED PAY WITHHELD FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 1965, TO JUNE 30, 1966, TO PROVIDE AN ANNUITY UNDER THE RETIRED SERVICEMAN'S FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN, 10 U.S.C. 1431-1446, FOR MRS. CONNIE MCKIM BRIDGMAN, WHO WAS HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT ON OCTOBER 1, 1962. YOUR REQUEST FOR DECISION WAS FORWARDED HERE BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF FINANCE ON AUGUST 17, 1966, AND ASSIGNED D.O. NUMBER A 921 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

COLONEL BRIDGMAN WAS GRANTED A DIVORCE ON FEBRUARY 9, 1965, FROM MRS. CONNIE MCKIM BRIDGMAN BY THE SEOUL FAMILY COURT, SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA. IN DECISION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1965, B-157707, WE SAID THAT A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER COLONEL BRIDGMAN WAS ACTUALLY DOMICILED IN KOREA, SINCE THE KOREAN DIVORCE DECREE LISTS A NEW YORK ADDRESS AS HIS "PERMANENT ADDRESS", AND THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE DIVORCE DECREE ITSELF OR ELSEWHERE THAT PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS MADE ON CONNIE MCKIM BRIDGMAN OR THAT SHE RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE KOREAN DIVORCE PROCEEDING.

IN VIEW OF THE DOUBT AS TO THE KOREAN COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION, WE CONCLUDED THAT NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO REFUND THE ANNUITY COST WITHHELD FROM COLONEL BRIDGMAN'S RETIRED PAY UNTIL A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES HAS DETERMINED THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES TO THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING.

YOU SAY THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM COLONEL BRIDGMAN TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE HAS BEEN A PERMANENT BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF KOREA SINCE HIS RETIREMENT, OCTOBER 1, 1962; THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY SERVED ON CONNIE MCKIM BRIDGMAN BY THE KOREAN CONSULATE GENERAL OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 13, 1965; THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND STATE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, TOKYO AND HONOLULU OFFICES, RECOGNIZED THE DECREE OF DIVORCE AS VALID WHEN HE APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY TO MARRY HIS PRESENT WIFE, A PERSON OF FOREIGN NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND DURING HER NATURALIZATION HEARING FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

YOU ALSO STATE THAT INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, SHOWS THAT MRS. CONNIE MCKIM BRIDGMAN WAS SERVED A SUMMONS BY MAIL, WRITTEN IN THE KOREAN LANGUAGE CHARACTERS, TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 26, 1965, AT THE SEOUL FAMILY COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS; THAT BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 27, 1965, HER ATTORNEY REQUESTED THE KOREAN CONSULATE GENERAL TO TRANSLATE THE PAPERS TO THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND THAT THE LETTER OF TRANSLATION IS DATED JANUARY 28, 1965.

IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 24, 1966, TO THE CHIEF, RETIRED PAY DIVISION, FINANCE CENTER, U.S. ARMY, COLONEL BRIDGMAN SAYS THAT HIS INTENTION SINCE HIS RETIREMENT HAS BEEN TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN KOREA, WHERE HE HAS BUSINESS INTERESTS, A HOME AND CONSIDERABLE PROPERTY, AND THAT HE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KOREA BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, THE AMERICAN EMBASSY, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CONCERNING THE RECITATION IN THE DIVORCE DECREE THAT HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IS OWEGO, NEW YORK, COLONEL BRIDGMAN SAYS THAT OWEGO, NEW YORK, IS HIS MOTHER'S HOME WHICH, UNDER KOREAN CUSTOM AND TRADITION, WOULD BE REGARDED AS THE LOCATION OF HIS FAMILY HEADSHIP, SINCE HIS MOST SENIOR LIVING ANCESTOR RESIDES IN THAT COMMUNITY; THAT HAD HE NEVER LIVED OR VISITED IN OWEGO THAT COMMUNITY NEVERTHELESS WOULD, UNDER KOREAN CUSTOM AND TRADITION, BE HIS "PERMANENT ADDRESS;" THAT HE HAS NOT LIVED IN OWEGO SINCE 1936 WHEN HIS FAMILY MOVED TO SALEM, NEW JERSEY, FROM WHICH COMMUNITY HE ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE IN APRIL 1942; THAT, AS HIS MILITARY RECORDS REFLECT, UNTIL HIS RETIREMENT HE CLAIMED THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE AND HOME OF RECORD; THAT THE OWEGO ADDRESS ENTERED THE KOREAN COURT RECORDS THROUGH AN ERRONEOUS IN-COURT TRANSLATION WHEN HE SUPPLIED THAT ADDRESS FOR WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD TO BE A MAILING ADDRESS IN THE UNITED TATES; AND THAT UNDER THE KOREAN TRADITION OF FAMILY HEADSHIP AND PERMANENT ADDRESS HIS MAILING ADDRESS IN ENGLISH WAS RENDERED "PERMANENT ADDRESS" IN KOREAN.

HE FURTHER STATES THAT UNDER KOREAN LAW A HEARING UPON A PETITION FOR DIVORCE WILL NOT BE HELD UNTIL SERVICE HAS BEEN MADE UPON THE DEFENDANT AND THE DEFENDANT HAS HAD WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERS RESONABLE TIME TO APPEAR OR TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; THAT IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING A MESSAGE FROM THE KOREAN CONSUL IN LOS ANGELES WAS INTRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT TO ESTABLISH THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS HAD BEEN MADE BEFORE THE COURT WOULD PROCEED; AND THAT UNDER KOREAN LAW ONCE SERVICE BY THE CONSUL HAS BEEN MADE JURISDICTION OVER THE NONRESIDENT PARTY ATTACHED.

IT REASONABLY APPEARS FROM SUCH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE SEOUL FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE DIVORCE DECREE AND, HENCE, YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER, WHICH YOU ENCLOSED WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR DECISION, IS PROPER, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.