suffered chromosomal change, the allegedly negligent act drawn into question was performed while [the servicemen were] in the service.” Monaco, 661 F.2d at 133. Thus, the inquiry must focus on whether the negligent act is the basis for the “type of claim[ ] that, if generally permitted, would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.” Shearer, 473 U.S. at 59, 105 S.Ct. 3039. We conclude that the plaintiffs cannot escape the fact that the negligent acts alleged in their complaint find their basis in the military’s decision to inoculate its soldiers with drugs and to expose them to pesticides, and the issue of whether they can allege or demonstrate injury is irrelevant to the analysis. See, e.g., Monaco, 661 F.2d at 134 (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs also argue that the operative
holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation holding that the fact that a plaintiff may seek relief from injury not based on the injury of the serviceman does not change the substantive analysis because the court must still examine the governments activity in relation to military personnel on active duty holding that in determining whether a duty exists a court should consider the following factors 1 the reasonable foreseeability of injury 2 the reasonable likelihood of injury 3 the magnitude of the burden that guarding against injury places on the defendant and 4 the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant emphasis added holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision