1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After entering the Navy on November 4, 1963, the Plaintiff participated in the Vietnam War from March 14, 1966 to March 8, 1967, and was discharged from military service around that time.

B. On October 26, 2005, the Plaintiff sustained an injury by explosioning the mines during the course of performing mine detection operations, and recognized the application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State as an element for soldier or policeman wounded in action. On March 19, 2012, when the right-to-hand bridge was injured, the strike in accordance with the explosion of the mine was made into the left-hand ear, and on March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. However, the Plaintiff was recognized as an element for soldier or policeman wounded in action on the ground that there was no objective data to recognize that there was a difference in military service, and the injury on the part of the State (hereinafter “the injury in this case”).

(C) After having been judged below the grade in a physical examination, it was judged that it was below the above. (4)

On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on the ground of the foregoing reasons, claiming for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. However, on November 25, 2014 after the resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the requirements for the persons of distinguished service to the State, which stated that “I shall not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman killed and wounded in action, although there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the instant wounds were wounded during combat action, it does not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded in action.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the instant injury

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is Vietnam War.