upon divorce. The Mansell Court noted that 10 U.S.C. § 1408 was enacted to authorize state courts to treat disposable retired pay as community property, Id. at 584, 109 S.Ct. at 2026, but went on to conclude that “disposable retired pay” does not include the amount of retired pay waived by the retired military member in order to obtain disability pay. Id. at 595, 109 S.Ct. at 2032. ¶ 7 After the Mansell decision, the effect of the waiver of military retirement benefits in favor of disability benefits upon the rights of former spouses has been the subject of a great deal of debate. Undeniably, veterans’ disability benefits are the separate property of the veteran. See, e.g., Gray v. Gray, 1996 OK 84, ¶¶ 13-14, 922 P.2d 615, 619. However, in her dissent in Mansell, Justice .Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So.2d 235, 236
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that the officer acted within the scope of his authority in requiring the defendant stopped in middle lane of traffic to exit his vehicle holding that  disposable retirement pay  from military pension was equal to gross retirement pay less federal income taxes holding that the trial court acted within its discretionary powers to prohibit a veteran from reducing his retirement pay or requiring him to indemnify his spouse if he chose to do so 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