Go back and re-read his original post. He says his divorce decree gives her 30% of a major's pension.
Sure it does. But your calculation involved taking his entire future pension and giving her 30% of it. That means turning FUTURE payments into current payments. It doesn't work that way.
Let's say that he's going to retire in 2010 and will make $1000 per month. Her 30% would be $300 per month - starting in 2010.
He wants to convert that into a lump sum and give her an equivalent amount now in place of the future pension. You can't just add up all the money she would have earned in the future and give her that amount today since that doesn't allow for the present value of future earnings.
He needs an accountant to factor in all of the following:
1. His anticipated retirement benefit at retirement
2. Anticipated increases in pension over time (if any)
3. Anticipated retirement date.
4. Number of years that he would receive retirement benefits based on life expectancy
5. Estimated interest that would be earned on a current lump sum payment
From that (and probably a couple of things I've forgotten), he can calculate the current value of his future pension benefit. She is entitle to 30% of THAT number. Simply multiplying the anticipated future benefit times the number of months she would receive it would significantly overestimate net present value.
Once he calculates the net present value and offers her 30% of it, she is free to accept it or reject it. I doubt if the court would order her to take a lump sum payment in lieu of future earnings. Of course, there's no guarantee she'd take it.
Now, if he simply does what you're suggesting and gives her 30% of projected future earnings without discounting for present value, she'd be an idiot NOT to take it.