A Soldier Requested to be Discharged Due to Caring for His Mother with a Group II Disability – the Court Named the Mistakes that Lled to the Refusal

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court rejected a serviceman's claim to declare unlawful his military unit's failure to discharge him from service for family reasons and to compel the command to make a decision.

Plaintiff Cites Need to Care for Mother

The serviceman lodged an administrative claim with the Zhytomyr District Administrative Court against his military unit, seeking:

• Recognition of the military unit's inaction as unlawful, specifically its failure to decide on his report dated 4 September 2025. This report concerned his discharge from military service during mobilisation under martial law for family reasons, citing the seventh paragraph of subparagraph 'g' of paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service", due to the necessity of providing constant care for a person with a Group II

  disability.

• An order for the military unit to discharge the plaintiff from military service during mobilisation under martial law for family reasons, based on the seventh paragraph of subparagraph 'g' of paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service", due to the necessity of providing constant care for a person with a Group II disability.

The plaintiff substantiated his claims by stating that upon arriving at the military unit, he informed his immediate commander, both in writing and orally, about the grounds for discharge due to family reasons. His mother, he explained, is a person requiring constant external care. This was corroborated by medical commission conclusion No. 1540, dated 25 June 2025, which confirmed the presence of cognitive impairments in elderly citizens, necessitating the provision of social care services on a non-professional basis. The plaintiff alleged that his reports were neither registered nor answered, and subsequent appeals were ignored. He later submitted additional reports dated 30 June 2025, 23 July 2025, and 4 September 2025, attaching supporting documents. These included conclusions regarding his mother's Group II disability, family status verification acts, and his birth certificate. The plaintiff's mother also contacted the territorial recruitment and social support centre. The plaintiff left the military unit without authorisation on 18 July 2025, citing a threat to his mother's life.

Position of the Military Unit

The military unit, in response to the claim, denied the demands, stating that the plaintiff failed to submit the report via the established "through the command" procedure, did not attach all necessary documents, including the certificate of parents' divorce, and is currently deemed to have left the military unit without authorisation.

What the Court Decided

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court considered case No. 240/21932/25 and decided to deny the claim in full.

The court established that the plaintiff served in the military during mobilisation and submitted reports. However, these reports were not submitted "through the command" via the established subordination procedure and did not contain all necessary documents as defined by Appendix 19 to the Instruction on the organisation of the implementation of the Regulation on military service by citizens of Ukraine in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the order of the Minister of Defence of Ukraine dated 10 April 2009, No. 170. This specifically included the certificate of parents' divorce, which was required to confirm the absence of other persons capable of providing care. The military unit command properly registered and processed the reports, lawyer inquiries, and complaints, providing reasoned responses that explained the appeal procedure and the list of necessary documents. The court noted that the provisions of the Regulation on military service by citizens of Ukraine in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 10 December 2008, No. 1153/2008, and Instruction No. 170 clearly define the procedure for submitting reports "through the command." Submitting reports directly to the military unit without following the chain of command does not meet these requirements.

The court concluded that the military unit, acting within its competence, took all proper actions regarding the plaintiff's appeals; therefore, no inaction occurred. The plaintiff failed to prove that the submitted reports contained all necessary documents for discharge. The court also took into account that the plaintiff left the military unit without authorisation, which precludes the possibility of discharge, even if legal grounds had existed during his absence.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.