I think that is the way it works. Played the other way around the projecting forward at 5% per annum calculation is why the 'cash equivalent transfer values' can get to some pretty high numbers at the point of divorce even if the current pension earned is quite small:
For example, if a person has an accrued pension today of £10,000 per annum. If this was then revalued to a normal retirement date in 20 years at 5% per annum it would be a pension worth £26,533.
The cost to provide this pension at an annuity rate of say 6.5% would be £408,200.
With a projected investment return of say 7%, to achieve the target cash sum required of £408,200 at retirement date - you would need to invest today £105,487.
£105,487 is, therefore, the cash equivalent transfer value in this very simple example. It is very easy to see how pension benefits can become a huge part of negotiation and a huge thing to lose in any divorce settlement.
As I understand it a pension sharing order helps you to dodge the bullet above (and many just don't have that kind of cash kicking around with 20 years or more to retirement) but the effect of kicking the can down the road can mean an even bigger problem later on.
In a way the Armed Forces Scheme is stuck in the middle of all this. On one hand it could be seen as unfair to limit the actuarial pension growth of the other party just because the Armed Forces Scheme did not/could not grow to the same level. On the other hand it would be unfair to burden the Scheme by protecting your part of the pot whilst using actuarial protection to increase the pension pot of the ex-partner. In effect your pension would be worth (ie cost more) after divorce than other members of the pension scheme.
The apparent unfairness of all this is catalysed by the hamfisted efforts to make the AFPS fit with regular pension legislation. The AFCS is not a regular pension scheme and it is deliberately designed for the unique aspects of the Service. This is just another example where arbitrary values and percentages have been used to make the legislation 'fit' with AFCS. Another example of this is the values used for the lifetime allowance - a system introduced to stop the rich placing massive amounts into a pensions to avoid tax - but actually penalises senior officers, doctors, senior nurses etc when they are promoted.
I wish you well in your challenge as this is far from 'sharing' when you get nothing; but I fear it will take new legislation to be inacted to allow an Armed Forces pension 'share' to be a set percentage of an intangible benefit in the future, subject to your own career choices or path. The status quo is clearly unfair on you, is cost-neutral for the Scheme, but provides security to your ex-partner at a level that would match that of a civilian scheme.
If you have been poorly or incorrectly advised then you may have legal redress, even if the documentation is correct. Good luck.