Affairs, 505 Fed.Appx. 209, 213 (3d Cir.2012) (“the only proper defendant in a federal employee’s Title VII action is the head of the appropriate agency.”). As such, the only proper Defendant with regard to this claim is Defendant James, the Secretary of the Air Force. Moreover, the Feres Doctrine bars Title VII claims brought by military personnel against their superiors. See Willis v. Roche, 256 Fed.Appx. 534, 536 (3d Cir.2007) (interpreting the Feres Doctrine to bar Title VII claims, reasoning that “every court of appeals considering the issue has held that the Feres doctrine bars uniformed military personnel from bringing discrimination claims under Title VII and other discrimination statutes.”); Tucker v. Wynne, No. 08-4390JAP, 2009 WL 2448520, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Military &
holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding that air force mechanic was barred by feres from bringing claims under title vii and accordingly the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims under rule 12b1 holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the industrial commission only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the payment of wages statute and not contract claims