Here is an LA Times article interviewing him and a couple of his kids in 1993. It reads like an unhappy marriage before he deployed that would have ended regardless.

She gained custody of the younger children because she raised them for alone* for half their lives. They were 5 and 6 when they last saw him. She got a portion of his retirement and the home because women don't make as much money as men (ESP in the '60s/'70s compared to now) and she had two kids to raise. She later remarried, but that doesn't change the law.

Yes, she had been sleeping with other men. They had an unhappy marriage and he was a POW. Had he not been captured they would have just gotten a divorce way sooner than 6 and a half years later. She felt like she needed to start the next part of her life. I can't fault her for that. He's really hurt by it though, and that makes sense. He had 6 years of only thinking about the good times only to be rescued and told "Hey, I started over a long time ago". That sucks. They still gave it a go and of course there was no way it was going to work.

I feel like someone added material and phrased that bit in a manner to demonize this woman. The facts point to an unhappy marriage thrown into a wildly, unimaginably difficult circumstance. I don't think we need to attack her just because her ex-husband has a justifiably horrible outlook about her and the divorce settlement.

The kids seem like okay, happy people and are said to like both their parents. I think that speaks the most about who their mother and father were.

A lot of this is supposition, but so is the hurtful stuff so I might as well provide a counterpoint.