Fin,
You refer to your former partner's pension increasing at 5% per annum. I wonder, are you referring to benefits being taken before the normal retirement date of 60 - something which was in the order, but unbeknown to you?
I was involved in a very acrimonious dispute a year or two back, one of the parties had originally suggested a clean break (i.e. they divorce each with their own AFPS pot intact). It was manifestly unfair for a number of background reasons, least of all because the person suggesting it had accrued in excess of thirty three years service, compared to the other person who had accrued six years before surrendering her own career to raise the family (as you had to do then, of course) and support him to lofty heights.
She (the homemaker) argued that as she had surrendered her own military career to raise the family, she too, had earned the right to draw a benefit at aged 55 (as she would have been able to do if she had stayed in). The other party (the career follower) argued that convention dictated that the value of her allocated income (based on a % split) should be assumed to be taken at the more conventional (aged) 60 (even though he had taken benefits at fifty five) and accordingly offered a % split valued for delivery to her at that date.
No one could make the numbers work, mediation was declined by him and we all duly trooped off to court where it was eventually agreed that the split that had been decided was in fact fair, and should in fact be extrapolated to aged 55. This meant that the (e.g.) 35% split which was proposed (and rejected by her) at age 60 was determined instead to be valued at 35%.. but at aged 55. I.e. The same split but in payment for five years longer. It meant that should the homemaker's allocation of the cash equivalent value was subsequently bigger because the AFPS trustee had to assume she would take the income for five years longer. Is this what has happened to you?
It was argued, successfully, that the amount at that age should not be reduced and that both parties should have a value split determined to be aged 55. If the homemaker (the pension credit member) decided not to draw the benefit at aged 55, it would increase by an average of c5%. But the careerist (the pension debit member) would not suffer a decrease in income because he had retired already. The other party (the pension debit member, 'him') argued that his former partner could decide not to draw benefits at aged 55, and instead delay until 60 when the income would have compounded upwards by inflation as well as the annual c5% actuarial increase.
I was retained by the pension credit member so I 'won' for my client and I was delighted to have done so - she deserved absolutely nothing less (I am posting this with her permission) under the much broader circumstances. And if anyone is thinking about retaining the services of a quite well known barrister proclaiming to be a military pension specialist I would delighted to tell you who *not* to use. He/she was absolutely useless, I was stupefied at the lack of detailed insight and her conspiratorial approach to me in the county court car park to negotiate was nothing short of risible.
If you feel that you have had poor advice, then you may have grounds for an appeal. I have to say, I found nearly all of the specialist companies and bodies proclaiming to have knowledge of the workings of a pension sharing order, and AFPS, utterly appalling. Someone nameless, and who have known much, much better, told me to leave well alone as it was 'his pension'.
General tip to anyone - the essence of a good case is to be had in the actuarial report. You have to know what questions to ask - garbage in, garbage out. The other party employed an online joe who wanted me to approve his cut and paste actuarial report. It took two months before he realised that mine and mine alone was the one that was going to be presented for approval and without alteration. It was a three page instruction in the end. But it won my client all that she fairly deserved, despite the hostility from the other party.