MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking redress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§2671 et seq., for an injury she sustained while participating in a military training exercise at Fort Drum, New York. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 22, 2022, the case was transferred to this Court. See Dkt. No. 23. On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 32. Currently before the Court is the Government’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. See Dkt. No. 35. II. BACKGROUND A. Battlefield Simulations at Fort Drum As part of the comprehensive training program that the United States uses to prepare military members for active warfare, the United States Army simulates battlefield hostilities, typically on military bases across the country. See Dkt. No. 35-1 at 1. The focus of these simulation exercises is to recreate, as much as possible, the actual conditions under which military members will fight should they ever be called to battle. See id. at 2. As stated in the relevant Army regulation: “Military exercises simulate wartime operations. Their realistic, battle-focused setting helps train battlefield commanders, staffs, and units for combat. The realistic setting also helps train support commanders, staffs, installations, and units in mobilizing, deploying, and sustaining operational forces.” Id.; see also Army Reg. 350-28, §2-1(a). One of these simulation programs is operated by the United States Army National Guard (“ARNG”) and is known as the “Exportable Combat Training Capability” (“XCTC”) Program, which “enables” ARNG “Brigade Combat Teams…to achieve trained Platoon readiness” in preparation for rotations at the Army’s Combat Training Centers at Fort Irwin, California and Fort Polk, Louisiana. See Dkt. No. 35-3 at 5 (quoting Army National Guard Reg. 350-50-1, §§1-1(a) and 2-2(b)). XCTC is an Army National Guard Training Program, meaning that it is operated at the federal level by ARNG personnel who coordinate with State National Guard headquarters “based on [ARNG] training requirements generated by [ARNG] Readiness and Plans.” Id. (quotation omitted). ARNG held an XCTC simulated battlefield exercise between May and June 2018, at Fort Drum, which is located near Watertown, New York. See Dkt. No. 35-2 at 5. ARNG contracted with private entities to provide support in conducting this training exercise, including in the use of special effects that would simulate detonations and analogous battlefield explosions. See id. at 6. The prime contract for these services was between the United States Army and Raytheon Company. See id. at 7. As relevant to this lawsuit, Raytheon entered into a subcontract with Ravenwood Solutions, which further subcontracted with Westefx Military Services — a company that “provides a state-of the-art experience that ensures our soldiers train in as close to real-world combat scenarios as possible” — to provide simulated explosives for the Fort Drum XCTC exercise. See id. at 8. At all times, this contracted support — such as that provided by Westefx — was subordinate to the ARNG XCTC Program Manager, who “‘[p]rovide[d] guidelines to the contracted support agencies on matters related to doctrine, realistic conditions for training, objective standards for operation and maintenance of instrumentation, and tactics, techniques, and procedures.’” Dkt. No. 35-3 at 9 (quoting Army National Guard Reg. 350-50-1, §2-3(b)). Although contractors were hired to facilitate the execution of this XCTC rotation, the Government contends that their employees who worked directly with the exercising soldiers within the training area were supervised by military members who “[c]oordinate[d]/direct[ed]” them. Id. at 10 (quoting Army National Guard Reg. 350-50-1, §3-8(a)(1)). Westefx employed Plaintiff to serve in the role of Battlefield Effects (“BFE”) Technician, responsible for detonating simulated explosives during the Fort Drum XCTC exercise on June 7, 2018. See Dkt. No. 35-2 at 11. Prior to arriving at Fort Drum for the exercise, Plaintiff executed a personal contract in which she acknowledged that she would be engaged in activities on a federal military base, and that she had to abide by the strict conduct policy of the United States Department of Defense. See id. at 12 (citing Dkt. Nos. 35-6 & 35-7). Plaintiff further warranted that she understood that if she engaged in certain prohibited activities during the exercise, she would be turned over to the military police. See id. at 13. B. The Events of June 7, 2018 Individuals who were part of the XCTC exercise on June 7, 2018, were assigned to various parts of the simulated “battlefield,” which were known as “lanes.” Dkt. No. 35-2 at 14. A military member — known colloquially as an “Operator/Controller” (“OC”) or “Observer Coach/Trainer” (“OC/T”) — is assigned to each “lane,” and is responsible for all personnel participating in the exercise in that particular lane. See id. at 15. The OC is the sole person responsible for directing and maintaining control over all personnel — whether civilian or military, government employee or contractor — during the exercise, including whether to place those individuals and their equipment, and what actions to take and when. See id. at 16. According to the Government, when the OC of a particular lane gives an instruction, a Westefx employee assigned to that lane must obey that command as would any military member in an actual battlefield context. See id. The supervisory control of the OC within the lane is set forth in ANRG regulations as follows: “‘Lane OC/Ts…[c]oordinate/direct the…OPFOR [opposing forces], COBs [civilians on the battlefield], Role Players, BFE, and videographers.’” Dkt. No. 35-3 at 17 (quoting Army National Guard Reg. 350-50-1, §3-8(a)(1)). On June 7, 2018, Plaintiff was assigned to Platoon Attack Lane 5. See Dkt. No. 35-2 at 18. Also assigned to Platoon Attack Lane 5 was an assistant BFE from Westefx, Mary Thompson. See id. at 19. The OC on Platoon Attack Lane 5 that day was then-Specialist Matthew Hodolitz. See id. at 20. Before the beginning of the exercise on June 7, 2018, and before even traveling out to Platoon Attack Lane 5, Plaintiff showed the “ammunition” that she and Thompson had gathered for the exercise to Specialist Hodolitz. See id. at 22. When she arrived at Platoon Attack Lane 5, Specialist Hodolitz brought Plaintiff and Thompson into the wooded area on that “lane” and instructed them to place the devices that they were carrying for detonation during the exercise to certain locations. See id. at 23. Specialist Hodolitz also ordered Plaintiff not to “fire” her devices until he gave her a direction to do so — an order that Plaintiff complied with. See id. at
