their wages. In re Moorhous, 108 F.3d 51 at 56 (absent authorizing statute, assignment of wages is invalid). For this purpose, and although not expressly cited, it may be assumed that the Debtors’ position, regarding the unenforceability of their Agreement with Structured Investments, is founded upon the restraint on alienation contained in 37 U.S.C. § 701(c). Title 37 of the United States Code governs pay and allowances for members of the uniformed services. Section 701(c) of this Title provides that “[a]n enlisted member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may not assign his pay, and if he does so, the assignment is void.” For purposes of this statute, a military pension is considered “pay.” See Barker v. Kansas, 503 U.S. 594, 605, 112 S.Ct. 1619, 118 L.Ed.2d 243 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, consistent with the position advocated
holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding that military retirement benefits are to be considered deferred pay for past services holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage holding that  disposable retirement pay  from military pension was equal to gross retirement pay less federal income taxes