A Disabled Soldier's Discharge Report Was Left Unconsidered Due to AWOL Status — Court Explained Whether This Is Legal

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court concluded that a serviceman’s status as absent without leave (AWOL) does not exempt the command from the obligation to consider his discharge report. The court emphasized that the command must review the report and make a decision in accordance with legal requirements. At the same time, the court dismissed the claim against the Ministry of Defense, since decisions regarding the discharge of servicemen fall within the authority of the commander of the respective military unit, not the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff, who served in a military unit, turned to the court after, according to him, the command did not consider his discharge reports. He referred to subparagraph "b" of paragraph 2 of part 4 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service" and stated that he has a Group II disability, which he considered grounds for discharge.

The first report was sent by the serviceman in October 2025 through the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the second in January 2026. According to him, he received no decision following their consideration, so he asked the court to recognize the inaction of the military unit and the Ministry of Defense as unlawful and to oblige them to consider his requests.

Defendants' Position

The Ministry of Defense opposed the claim, stating it was not a proper defendant. The ministry explained that personnel decisions regarding the discharge of servicemen are made by commanders of military units, and the documents received from the plaintiff were only forwarded through the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the relevant military unit.

The military unit, in turn, argued that the plaintiff violated the established procedure for submitting the report by bypassing the immediate commander. Additionally, the defendant indicated that in April 2025 the serviceman left the military unit without authorization, so his subsequent requests did not create an obligation to consider them as properly submitted reports. It was also noted that the medical documents were issued after the unauthorized departure from the place of service.

Court’s Conclusions

The court analyzed the Law of Ukraine "On Military Duty and Military Service," the Regulations on Military Service of Citizens of Ukraine in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Instruction No. 170, and the Procedure for Organizing Work with Servicemen’s Reports, approved by the Ministry of Defense Order No. 531.

The court stated that the legislation imposes on authorized officials the duty to consider a serviceman’s report and make a decision on it. Following such consideration, the authorized official must resolve the substance of the report: if the legal grounds exist, arrange discharge or provide a reasoned refusal. Disagreement with the report by immediate or direct commanders does not prevent its further consideration, and refusal must be properly justified. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s legal opinion set out in the ruling dated April 2, 2025, in case No. 280/7446/24, according to which only a report for which a decision has been made and communicated to the serviceman is considered reviewed.

In case materials 160/5000/26, the court found no evidence that the military unit’s command made any decision on the submitted reports or informed the plaintiff about it. Therefore, the court concluded that the reports were effectively left unconsidered, and the military unit committed unlawful inaction.

The court separately rejected the military unit’s argument that the plaintiff’s AWOL status prevents consideration of his discharge. The court noted that current legislation does not provide that the mere fact of unauthorized absence exempts the command from the duty to consider the serviceman’s report and make a decision. The court did not rule on the plaintiff’s right to discharge but only examined the legality of the inaction regarding the non-consideration of his reports.

At the same time, the court agreed with the Ministry of Defense’s argument that the commander of the military unit, not the Ministry, is the authorized entity to decide on servicemen’s discharge. Therefore, there were no grounds to satisfy the claims against the Ministry of Defense.

Court Decision

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim. The court recognized the military unit’s inaction regarding the non-consideration of the serviceman’s discharge reports dated October 6, 2025, and January 19, 2026, as unlawful and obliged the military unit to consider these reports and make decisions in accordance with legal requirements.

The court denied the claim against the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

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