1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 1969, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and served in the Vietnam War from December 12, 1969 to January 21, 1971, and was discharged from the hospital on February 19, 1972, and was determined and registered as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to the Act on Assistance to Patients from Actual or Potential Diseases, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations, and was determined to fall under class 7 of the disability rating in the physical examination.

B. On February 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant to undergo a physical examination on April 7, 2014 at the Central Veterans Hospital for the classification of disability ratings. A medical opinion was presented to the Plaintiff that he/she had a serious indiculatory urology (NPDR) and that he/she constitutes class 7 1116 of the disability rating (e.g., 0., 00 if the correction of both eyes were 0.6). A medical opinion was presented that the extension and its medical specialist did not meet the rating standards because they did not have any combined opinion.

On July 16, 2014, the Board of Patriots and Veterans decided that the Plaintiff’s urology constituted Class 7 1117 of the disability rating (a person with a urine urology combined with urine urology) by taking into account relevant data and the results of the physical examination. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the results of the physical examination conducted by the Council of Patriots and Veterans Affairs to the effect that the Plaintiff’s urology was determined as Grade 7 of the disability rating and there is no change in the disability rating (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Around August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 3 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he was suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants does not exceed 0.08, respectively.