Should a Commander Consider a Report from a Service Member Who Deserted Their Unit

Service members and record keeping. Photo: collage Novyny.LIVE

Unauthorized departure from a military unit effectively blocks the demobilization procedure. While reviewing administrative case No. 120/8457/26, the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court found that the military command lawfully ignores reports from such absconders. The lawsuit arose from a service member who accused his former military unit of unlawful inaction and sought to compel it to review his appeal.

This was reported by Novyny.LIVE with reference to the court ruling published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.

Advertisement

Report via “Armiia+” and the criminal case

According to the case materials, the plaintiff sent the discharge document on 29 April 2026 via the electronic document management system. The man relied on Ministry of Defense order No. 531 dated 6 August 2024, which legalizes submitting documents through the “Armiia+” portal.

Not having received a response from the command, the service member’s representative sent an attorney’s inquiry, which revealed unexpected details. The unit’s reply confirmed that as early as 2 May 2023 a criminal proceeding No. 62023170030000547 was opened on the fact of unauthorized departure and entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. Exactly one month later, on 2 June 2023, the commander issued order No. 157 removing the individual from the personnel lists. Accordingly, all personnel records were then forwarded to another competent authority.

Court decision and rules of subordination

The main argument for dismissing the claim was the requirements of military subordination. Under paragraph 233 of the Regulation on Service (Presidential Decree No. 1153/2008 dated 10 December 2008), reports are submitted exclusively “by command.”

The court also considered paragraph 117 of the Disciplinary Statute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which obliges commanders to resolve raised issues or issue written refusals to soldiers.

Because order No. 157 had not been revoked, at the time the report was filed the plaintiff was no longer an active subordinate of that commander. Relying on Articles 9 and 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU) regarding the burden of proof, the court recognized the defendants’ actions as lawful and fully dismissed the claim.

The court fee paid by the service member will not be refunded. Pursuant to Articles 255 and 295 of the CAPU, 30 days are allotted to appeal this decision to the appellate court.

Novyny.LIVE published lawyers’ explanations of why quickly paying half of a fine from a military enlistment office via smartphone has pitfalls. Such payment does not stop the 10-day period for appealing the decision, so confusion about rules for delivering postal summonses and procedural deadlines can cause you to lose the chance to prove your case.

Electronic military documents in the “Rezerv+”, “Armiia+”, and “Diia” apps are fully equated with paper documents by law, not just by the developers’ claims. Any refusal by officials to accept or process a digital document instead of a paper one is a direct violation.

If two fines from the military commissariat appear in “Rezerv+” at once and one of them is not active for payment, there’s no need to worry. It’s better to immediately pay the fine that has a payment button, and wait for the issuance of a ruling on the second one.