1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on December 18, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served as a small attack helicopter maintenance soldier in B, and was discharged on July 21, 2014.

B. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed for the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant, alleging that: (a) the Plaintiff loaded materials during the combat preparations training; (b) caused ice ice ice scams while ice scambling; and (c) incurred “scambris” and “scambris escape certificate (hereinafter “scambris escape certificate”) due to continued performance of duties

C. On December 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on December 18, 2014, which rendered a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, as a result of the review by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement that the instant difference is not deemed to have rapidly deteriorated at a natural progress speed or to have rapidly deteriorated since the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national security, or the protection of the people’s lives and property, or because the performance of duties or education and training, which are not directly related to the national security

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision of refusal to register a person of distinguished service to the State of this case" and "decision of refusal to register a person of distinguished service to the State of this case" and the "decision of refusal to register the person of distinguished service to the State of this case" collectively / [the grounds for recognition] of non-strife, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 10, and 11

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff caused the instant difference in the military service, which led to the aggravation of ice plates during the combat preparations training while serving in the military, and the aggravation of verscing pains through the continuous training of brugs, the parallel army, and the maintenance of small-sized attack helicopter, etc., which led to the instant difference. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s military service.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case on different premises is taken.