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 Army on December 1969 and was discharged from military service on November 23, 1972 after having participated in the Vietnam War from September 13, 1970 to September 29, 1971.

B. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on the ground that the Plaintiff was exposed to defoliants during the period of his/her on January 25, 2016 and caused “her toxic blood heart disease.” On March 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to register the Plaintiff as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.

C. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination for disability ratings at the Central Veterans Hospital.

The physical examination presented that the plaintiff's disability rating corresponds to the 6th grade 5108 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State") under the 6th grade 5108 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State"), but the defendant determined the plaintiff's disability rating as the 7th grade 511 of the above [Attachment Table 3] of the above [Attachment Table 3] after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for a physical reexamination on December 28, 2016, and received a physical reexamination for disability ratings from the Central Veterans Hospital on February 21, 2017.

A physical examination presented that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 6(2) and 5108 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure, but the Defendant is a narrow opinion on August 2, 2017 at least 50% of the result of the early procedure of the foregoing procedure of the procedure.