¶1Retired, concurring.
¶2I concur in the court’s well-reasoned opinion but am compelled to write separately to emphasize the fact that we are *330dealing here with a military pension that had not yet vested at the time the original dissolution decree was entered.
¶3Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-366(8) (Reissue 1984) states that “[t]he court shall include as part of the marital estate, for the purposes of the division of property at the time of dissolution, any pension plans, retirement plans, annuities, and other deferred compensation benefits owned by either party, whether vested or not vested.” (Emphasis supplied.)
¶4The court’s decision upholding the use of a military pension which had not yet vested as a source of alimony is a logical one in view of the above statute and the pattern of recent case law in this state regarding military pensions, but I believe it deserves further emphasis to avoid possible future confusion.