What is the difference between husband and wife when it comes to the equalization of retirement benefits?

Husband next argues that the entire increase should be his separate property if date of retirement is used as the valuation date. He introduced evidence to show that three factors caused the increase: (a) his additional years of service ('time on the job'); (b) his increase in earnings; and (c) his increase in age. The trial court divided the retirement benefits by using the 'time rule' (based on years of service during and after marriage) approved in In re Marriage of Wilson, 10 Cal.3d 851, 112 Cal.Rptr. 405, 519 P.2d 165 and Bensing v. Bensing, supra, 25 Cal.App.3d 889, ⁶ 102 Cal.Rptr. 255. Husband is in error when he states the increase was caused solely by his earnings or efforts after separation. Clearly, the 21 years and 7 months of community contribution to date of separation ⁷ played a substantial part in the increase. Two of the factors causing the increase, namely, 'time on the job' and increased earnings, were directly enhanced by the many years credited to the marriage. In In re Marriage of Freiberg, 57 Cal.App.3d 304, 312, 127 Cal.Rptr. 792, 798, the court applied the 'time rule' and stated: