Laymans take:
You need to stop listening to your adversary as to what is best for you or what your rights may be.
Me, I'd take a very careful look at the value of the retirement plan and my state law/issues as to equitable distribution. The value of my spouse's government pension plan essentially soared about 2or 3 to 1 in the last 5 years! So if by state view I was to look at 50% of the value increase during the marriage period (if it were just last 5 years) if would NOT be a small % or $ number!! More like 25% of the value of the pot!
Now the military equivalent of a QDRO requires 10 years of marriage as I recall--but that does NOT mean 0% for a shorter marriage, it merely means government won't pay it directly and you must provide for it some other way in your divorce order.
I think unless you wise up you are going to get short end of rope. Sure it makes sense to agree w/o having 2 lawyers at $250hr each run up 100 hrs of debate----but by not paying any attention you may well be selling yourself way short. Me, I'd spend for say a few hours of clear discussion with divorce counsel of my choice as to my options --and not discuss same with hubby at all --at least until I made up final mind...
Who has what assets and who has what income streams --lots of missing economic details.
Note alimony is taxable to you--may not be tax efficient way for you at all. A payment based on some share of his pension may not be taxable.to you.
So while there is room to debate how to value an income stream, lets say 40% of the income stream value had its origin during the time of the marriage --and the present value of that income stream based on his age/life expecatancy is say $ 850,000--last I looked 40% of that 50% suggests $170,000 is in ballpark for being bought out lump sum .
