Military unit refused discharge due to error in report: court sided with serviceman

The Kirovohrad District Administrative Court partially satisfied the serviceman's claim and recognized the refusal of the military unit to discharge him for family reasons as unlawful. The court obliged to reconsider his report and make a new decision taking into account the court's conclusions.

Circumstances of the case

The serviceman applied to the Kirovohrad District Administrative Court with a claim against the military unit, requesting:

• to recognize the refusal of the military unit to discharge him from military service on the basis of paragraph 1 of subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part four of article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" (in the edition effective at the time of submitting the report dated May 9, 2024) for family reasons related to raising a child with a disability under 18 years old, as stated in the written response No. 3051 dated March 19, 2025;
• to oblige the military unit to make a decision on discharge from military service for family reasons related to raising a child with a disability under 18 years old on the basis of paragraph 1 of subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" (in the edition effective at the time of submitting the report dated May 9, 2024).

The plaintiff justified his claims by stating that he is the father of a child with a disability, confirmed by the birth certificate, conclusion about the child with a disability under 18 years old, and a certificate for receiving benefits. The plaintiff submitted a discharge report on April 6, 2024, and again on May 9, 2024. The military unit refused discharge, citing that the report was not submitted through the command, necessary documents were missing, and the plaintiff left the military unit without permission.

The court established that the plaintiff was conscripted for military service according to the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 24, 2022, No. 69/2022 "On General Mobilization" and was enrolled in the lists of the military unit by order dated April 4, 2024. The plaintiff is the father of a child with a disability, confirmed by relevant documents. By the decision of the Cherkasy District Administrative Court dated September 27, 2024, in case No. 580/7183/24, which came into legal force on February 11, 2026, the inaction of the military unit regarding consideration of the plaintiff's reports dated April 6, 2024, and May 9, 2024, was recognized as unlawful and the military unit was obliged to consider the report dated May 9, 2024. In compliance with this decision, the military unit informed by letter No. 3051 dated March 19, 2025, about the refusal to discharge.

What the court decided

The Kirovohrad District Administrative Court considered case No. 340/8522/25 and decided to partially satisfy the administrative claim.

The court recognized the actions of the military unit regarding refusal to discharge the plaintiff under subparagraph "g" of paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" as unlawful and obliged the military unit to reconsider the plaintiff's report dated December 3, 2025, No. 42552 and make a decision taking into account the court's conclusions.

The court concluded that the plaintiff mistakenly indicated in the report the norm establishing the basis for discharge but specified the basis — the need to care for a father with a disability of group II, which allowed correctly determining the norm. The error regarding the norm is not an independent ground for refusal to satisfy the report.

The court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in rulings dated February 27, 2025, in case No. 380/16966/24 and May 7, 2025, in case No. 420/30227/24, according to which for discharge from military service in case of the need to provide constant care for one of the parents who is a person with a disability of group II, it is sufficient to have one of the following conditions: absence of other family members of the first or second degree of kinship of such a person or if other family members of the first or second degree of kinship themselves require constant care.

The court noted that the defendant did not assess the presence or absence of the possibility for grandchildren to provide constant care, which causes the premature conclusion about the absence of grounds for discharge.

The other claims were denied.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.