Feres quickly lurched toward incoherence. Part of the problem lay with Brooks v. United States, 337 U.S. 49, 93 L. Ed. 1200, 69 S. Ct. 918 (1949), a case that had immediately preceded Feres. In Brooks, the Supreme Court permitted recovery under the FTCA to two servicemen, the Brooks brothers, who had been 'on furlough, driving along the highway, under compulsion of no orders or duty and on no military mission [when] a government owned and operated vehicle collided with [them].' Feres, 340 U.S. at 146. Attempting to distinguish its previous holding in Brooks, the Feres court noted that 'the injury to Brooks did not arise out of or in the course of military duty,' and that the 'Brooks's relationship [to the government] while on leave was not analogous to that of a soldier injured while performing duties under orders.' Id. But the plaintiffs in Brooks were eligible for precisely the same set of government benefits as were the plaintiffs in Feres, and indeed they originally collected them in addition to receiving their FTCA awards. See Brooks, 337 U.S. at 53-54 (remanding the case for further proceedings to determine whether and by how much Brooks's ...