whether Feres bars a claim against the government is the claimant’s duty status. According to plaintiffs facts, he was “on authorized pass.” (Doc. 15 at 3, ¶ 7). Although plaintiff was off-duty and enjoying a recreational activity on the base, he was on active duty in the military at the time of his injuries. Obviously, the fact that plaintiff was an active member in the military makes it more likely that the Feres doctrine applies to his claims. See, e.g., Shaw, 854 F.2d at 363 (discussing claimant’s duty status in the incident to service analysis). The fact that the injuries occurred while plaintiff was off-duty and involved in a recreational activity does not prevent application of the Feres doctrine. See, e.g., Millang v. United States, 817 F.2d 533, 535-36 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Bon v. United States, 802 F.2d 1092, 1095
holding that liability insurance covered the injuries sustained when claimant exited car and was struck by a live wire since the claimant was still occupying the vehicle holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012 holding an anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion based on the fact that defendant was suspected of drug activity in his community failed to corroborate he currently was engaged in drug related activity and surveillance failed to uncover any independent information that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity recognizing that even though claimant was engaged in a recreational activity and offduty suit still implicated military discipline