1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Air Force on June 14, 2004 and served in the military police unit of the B flight team at the military police unit of the B flight team on September 22, 2006.

B. On October 25, 2006, the Plaintiff first applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the escape certificate (No. 5-T. 1 in the military service, hereinafter “the instant wound”) occurred during the military service. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s wound was related to official duties and recognized the Plaintiff as a person who meets the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. However, as a result of a new physical examination on July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was judged to have failed to meet the disability rating criteria.

C. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification with the Defendant on June 27, 2013. As a result of the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Plaintiff’s wound was not deemed to have caused the injury that occurred in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., but was judged to have deteriorated beyond natural progress due to repetitive military performance, etc., and the Plaintiff was determined as a person who meets the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. On January 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition that recognized the Plaintiff as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (disaster

Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a physical examination on the classification of disability ratings, but was determined to fall short of the standards for classification on April 30, 2015, and the Defendant rendered a decision again against the Plaintiff on May 13, 2014 on the ground that it did not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff could not properly lead his daily life due to the certificate of satisfy, although he received treatment of the difference in this case, and the difference in this case falls short of the grade standard.