Opinion ID: 438918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nature of the Activity

Text: 25 If our inquiry is truly to determine whether the policy reasons underlying Feres will be fulfilled by the application of military immunity in a particular case, we must examine what the serviceperson was actually doing at the time of the injury. See Miller v. United States, supra, 643 F.2d at 497 (Heaney, J., dissenting). Thus, if we are to adhere to the line drawn in the Feres case between injuries that did and injuries that did not arise out of or in the course of military duty, United States v. Brown, supra, 348 U.S. at 113, 75 S.Ct. at 143, we must consider whether the activity out of which the action arose served some military purpose or mission. See Johnson v. United States, supra, 704 F.2d at 1439; Miller v. United States, supra, 643 F.2d at 494; Parker v. United States, supra, 611 F.2d at 1014. The activity in this case--a racially tinged mock hanging of a fellow soldier--served no conceivable or remote military purpose.