전역명령처분취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 1, 1983, the Plaintiff A was assigned to the Staff Staff of the Air Force, and served for promotion on September 1, 2008. Plaintiff B was assigned to the Staff Staff of the Air Force on February 12, 1982 and served for promotion on September 1, 2005. The Plaintiff A was serving for promotion to the Staff Staff of the Air Force on September 1, 2005. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff B submitted a written application for support for discharge and transfer of military service to the Defendant on June 30, 2015.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to undergo vocational guidance, and the Plaintiffs received vocational guidance education from July 1, 2014.
C. While receiving vocational support education, Plaintiff A applied for voluntary discharge from active service on November 10, 2014, and Plaintiff B on November 18, 2014, respectively. On January 15, 2015, the committee for examination on discharge from active service of the Air Force Headquarters rendered a decision not to select the Plaintiffs as persons eligible for voluntary discharge from active service on the ground that “the number of applicants is less than the number of applicants due to lack of available budget for voluntary discharge from active service.” On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff B notified the Plaintiff A of each of them on January 26, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal to select the discharge from active service”). D.
On June 4, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to discharge from active service at their wishes.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition review with the Central Military Personnel Review Committee of the Ministry of National Defense regarding the instant disposition, but the said request was dismissed on July 27, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The ratio of appointment of warrant officers and noncommissioned officers to honorary discharged officers is significantly low compared to the ratio of appointment of honorary discharged officers of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1. This constitutes discrimination against warrant officers and noncommissioned Officers without reasonable criteria. Determination of inclusion of warrant officers in the same category as the officer is based on the Military Personnel Management Act.