is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence or contrary to law. Jackson v. Jackson, 2002 OK 25, ¶ 2, 45 P.3d 418, 422. The appellant bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. See Lincoln v. Lincoln, 1992 OK CIV APP 124, ¶ 18, 840 P.2d 41, 45. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES I. Indemnification Provision ¶ 6 Four of Husband’s five propositions of error may be summarized as the contention that the Trial Court’s order constitutes an illegal division of military disability benefits contrary to the dictates of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989). The Mansell case involved a dispute over whether military retirement pay that had been waived in ordei to receive veterans’ disability benefits constitutes community property that is divisibl 997) (<HOLDING>); Scheidel v. Scheidel, 129 N.M. 223, 4 P.3d
holding wife could not have moved to enforce payment of husbands retirement benefits before husband actually retired and began receiving benefits holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits holding former wifes cause of action accrued at the time of former husbands failure to pay her the portion of his retirement benefits to which she was entitled which was no earlier than the date of his actual retirement holding that the lower court may enforce a final judgment which guarantees a steady monthly payment to a former spouse through an indemnification provision providing for alternative payments to compensate for a reduction in nondisability retirement benefits