With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was again increased in 2000, and the resulting reductions to his Navy pension further reduced Susan’s benefits. Finally, in 2003, Ronald’s disability benefit was increased to 100 percent and Susan’s benefits were “significantly reduced” although not altogether eliminated. On April 23, 2003, Susan filed this action seeking to enforce the terms of the PSA that both parties agreed to in 1986. In a bench decision on December 5, 2003, the Family Court hearing justice found that Ronald impermissibly had modified the PSA when he “unilaterally applied for disability benefits” and that he had breached the contract between the parties. The court entered judgment on July 21, 2004, ordering that Susan receive a sum equal to 35 percent of the gross pension the husband would have received, had ) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, plaintiff asserts that the

A: holding that  disposable retirement pay  from military pension was equal to gross retirement pay less federal income taxes
B: holding that military retirement benefits are to be considered deferred pay for past services
C: holding pension conferred cola was an accrued benefit and not ancillary because it was intended to provide retirement income commenced only at retirement and was a benefit generally transferrable to succeeding employers
D: 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
A.