A pension of 26K/year is equivalent having 650K and taking 4% a year indefinitely.

You didn't mention whether your current earned income of 100K and 40K respectively is pre or post taxes. Assuming not, and that you pay 30% tax on your 100K and 25% tax on your 40K, you net 70K and 30K after tax. If you are saving +60% of that income, then that means your expenses are max 40K a year.

OPTION A: If you quit, you likely aren't going to be able to save anything substantial while maintaining current expenditures. Therefore, unless you already have 350K to generate that other 14K a year in FIRE to complement the pension your husband will collect in 10 years, this course of action may not be the most optimal, unless you eventually intend to return to work full or part time to earn the remainder.

OPTION B: If he quits, (is the pension all or nothing? does he get a portion or at least a return of contributions?), then you have 40K of expenses on your 70K. You can probably maintain a saving rate of 40%, and save about 30K a year. In 10 years, you'd have 400K (assuming 5% return yearly compounded) which could generate 16K a year.

Hence, depends on your current net worth, (if it is less than 600K, OPTION B won't let you reach FIRE, if it is less than 350K, neither options will lead you to FIRE).

I'm Canadian so I have no clue what FERS is. Housing allowance not factored in as you didn't quantify it.

TL;DR: Pension is worth quite a bit and is the better option.