Citations partially omitted. As the quoted language reveals, retirement benefits may be characterized as partly separate and partly community property. Under the Hare analysis, that portion of the retirement benefits earned by Mr. Traylor prior to the marriage, and after the termination of the community property regime, are his separate property. However, that portion of his retirement benefits which are derived from his employment during the existence of the marriage is a community asset subject to partition. The fact that Mr. Traylor began working for the postal service prior to the marriage does not defeat the application of community property principles to the retirement benefits. Accord Inzinna v. Inzinna, 456 So.2d 691 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 461 So.2d 317 (La.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because we find that the
holding that employee spouses accrued but unvested retirement benefits are a contingent property interest and a community asset holding a nonemployee spouse who holds a community pioperty interest in an employee spouses retirement benefits owns a community property interest in the latters iethement benefits as enhanced by eaily xetirement incentives holding that a spouses military retirement benefits were community property even though the employee spouse enlisted in the united states air force six years prior to the marriage holding railroad retirement benefits are not community property by congressional action holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service