plaintiffs injuries to determine whether the Feres doctrine bars his FTCA claim. See id. After reviewing the circumstances of plaintiffs injuries, and the rationales underlying the doctrine, the court finds plaintiffs FTCA suit is barred because his injuries occurred incident to his military service. There is no question that plaintiffs injuries were “at least ‘remotely related’ to [his] military service.” Corey v. United States, 1997 WL 474521, at *5, 124 F.3d 216(10th Cir. Aug.20,1997). B. DUTY STATUS Naturally, one of the facts always discussed when Cir.1986) (finding the presence of direct military control sufficient to invoke Feres despite the fact that the claimant was off-duty and involved in a recreational activity); Bozeman v. United States, 780 F.2d 198, 202 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). C. ON POST Courts also look at whether a
holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service recognizing that suit against the government for alleged negligence of military club bartender would require questioning of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions holding the military judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing charges with prejudice for violation of speedy trial courtmartial rule and recognizing that the military judge assessed the prejudice that would result from remedies short of dismissal holding that a challenge of the press ban during the military action in grenada was moot after the military action ended because plaintiffs failed to allege ongoing conduct holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403