"Disqualification of National Merit Status for 40-Year-Old National Security Act Violation Deemed Excessive"

Excluded from Veterans' Benefits Due to Praise and Incitement Conviction 40 Years Ago
"Incident Happened While Boasting About Military Service... Disqualification Was Excessive"

A person of national merit, who had been excluded from receiving veterans' benefits after it was belatedly confirmed that he had violated the National Security Act 40 years ago, has been reinstated through an administrative appeal. The authorities determined that the local veterans office had abused its discretion by making a mechanical decision without considering the seriousness of the crime or the individual’s current status.

The Central Administrative Appeals Commission of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced on the 24th that it had overturned the veterans office’s decision in the case of Mr. A, who was excluded from eligibility under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Persons of Special Mission due to a past violation of the National Security Act.

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Government Complex Sejong. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

Mr. A served in the Army Special Intelligence Training Unit in 1981, was registered as a person of national merit in 2002, and as a person of special mission merit in 2012, receiving veterans' benefits accordingly. However, during the process of applying for additional injury recognition in May 2024, it was confirmed that he had received a one-year prison sentence in April 1985 for violating Article 7, Paragraph 1 (praise and encouragement, etc.) of the National Security Act—an incident that occurred nearly 40 years prior. The additional injury recognition system allows those already registered as persons of national merit or veterans to apply to the local veterans office to have additional injuries or illnesses sustained while performing official duties recognized.

Subsequently, the Veterans Review Committee convened a remorse evaluation session and concluded that the degree of remorse was insufficient. Based on this, the local veterans office decided in September of the same year to disqualify Mr. A from merit status. Two months later, Mr. A filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. The remorse evaluation is a procedure to determine, in accordance with relevant laws, whether a person excluded from veterans’ benefits due to a criminal record (such as a sentence of imprisonment or higher) can be reinstated as a beneficiary.

The Appeals Commission found the action by the veterans office to be excessive. It interpreted Mr. A’s criminal act as a spontaneous incident that occurred while he was boasting about his military service, without any intent to endanger the existence or security of the state. The Commission also took into account that it was the veterans office's oversight that failed to identify his criminal record during the initial registration process, that Mr. A had performed approximately 400 hours of volunteer work over the 40 years following the crime, and that, as an elderly individual currently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he is in urgent need of medical support and veterans’ benefits.

Cho Soyoung, Chairperson of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, stated, "It is correct that a confirmed criminal record can be grounds for exclusion from eligibility as a person of national merit. However, when conducting a remorse evaluation, the authorities should not apply the past criminal record mechanically, but must consider the individual’s attitude of reflection, the circumstances of the crime, and health status to strike a balanced judgment regarding the necessity of veterans’ benefits."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.