1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on October 18, 2018 that constituted a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 28, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on July 3, 1971. From October 13, 1968 to May 26, 1970, the Plaintiff was dispatched from Vietnam War twice from September 16, 1970 to June 2, 1971.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that “the necessary equipment and food needed on April 8, 1970 during the service of the Vietnam War were loaded in helicopters and moved from the headquarters to 528 square meters, and that he was sup wood from the height of 2M and wood from the body of the company,” and that the Plaintiff caused the occurrence of a serious accident caused by supper and the heart decoration due to supper (hereinafter “the instant accident”) and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State.

C. On October 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relationship between the injury and the military service performance of the instant case as data prepared by the Plaintiff’s statement at the expiration of at least 42 years from the date of the instant injury; (b) notified the name of the original soldier in the confirmation document related to the requirements, and (c) notified the name of the original soldier in the “public space”; (d) records entered the association’s obligations among the association’s obligations on April 8, 1970 in the military service records, but there is no objective data to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered a difference in the military service other than the Plaintiff’s statement because it is not confirmed, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the disposition in this case.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection, however, on May 20, 2019, the Defendant notified the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation as before. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s entries in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was dispatched to Vietnam, and during his duty, the plaintiff was on 1970.