of military qualifications, we affirm the district court’s holding that plaintiffs claim is nonjusticiable under the Feres doctrine. We note that the district court did not indicate in its final order or judgment whether the dismissal in the present case is with or without prejudice. Consistent with our disposition in Wood, 968 F.2d at 740, we modify the judgment of the district court to specify that the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint is without prejudice. Conclusion For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is modified, and the judgment of the district court, as modified, is affirmed. 1 . The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 2 . Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The evidence indicates that the same
holding that where the claimants were servicemen injured or killed while on active duty due to the negligence of others in the armed forces they could not seek recovery under the ftca for injuries sustained that arose out of or were incident to their military service holding that tort law claim for injuries allegedly sustained because of negligently improper denial of coverage did not arise under act holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service