1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 5, 1973, the Plaintiff (BB) entered the Army as Staff Sergeant and discharged from military service on September 30, 1993.

B. On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant on the basis of the difference in the application, and the Defendant determined that the application falls short of the standards on the grounds of “non-conformity with the requirements of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State” and “non-conformity with the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State” on the grounds that spine separation certificate in spine is a congenital disease, during military service, but on September 29, 2005.”

Accordingly, on October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant. On January 10, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that inverte decentralization was congenital disease and there was no need for medical pressure due to the absence of the identification of the characteristics of external wounds, and that there was no need for medical treatment.

On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant on the basis that the application for re-registration was not verifiable due to changes in circumstances that could reverse the previous deliberation on November 4, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). On the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for re-registration was not verified, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and the veteran’s compensation (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on December 23, 2015, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff completed the training for six months by entering the Gun as a staff sergeant in 1973 and completed the training for six months, and completed the entire Gun newsletter every day after he was placed in the Gun, and when he works for the search team in 1988, the Plaintiff’s assertion is a special official training, a special official training, and a helicopter training.