The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal has ruled that a Ukrainian border guard detachment unlawfully refused to discharge a mobilized soldier who requested leave to care for his disabled father.
The judicial panel considered case number 500/6304/25 after military commanders rejected the serviceman's application because he had an adult sister who could potentially provide care, according to legal news portal sud.ua.
The serviceman was conscripted under mobilization into the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine in April 2024. The border guard service operates as an armed force agency tasked with protecting national borders and maintaining frontier security.
In September 2025, the soldier submitted an official report up his chain of command requesting discharge from military service due to family circumstances. He stated that he needed to provide constant care for his father, who holds a Group II disability classification.
Alongside his request, the soldier provided official proof of his familial relationship, documentation confirming his father's Group II disability status, and a medical conclusion under Form Number 080-4/o. That medical form certifies functional health impairments that prevent a terminally ill individual from moving or caring for themselves independently, creating a need for non-professional social care services. He also attached a Medical Advisory Commission conclusion stating that his father required continuous care, a court order documenting his father's divorce, a residential inspection report, family asset inspection records, and paperwork regarding his sister.
Dispute over care requirements
Documentation submitted by the soldier confirmed that his sister lived separately from their father. Furthermore, the filings established that she was already providing constant care for another individual.
Despite these submissions, the military command rejected the discharge request. In a formal letter sent on October 9, 2025, commanders informed the serviceman that the Form Number 080-4/o medical conclusion could not be accepted as valid proof that his father required constant third-party care specifically.
Lower court ruling and appeal
The serviceman appealed the command's refusal to the Ternopil District Administrative Court, an administrative tribunal located in western Ukraine. On February 23, 2026, the court of first instance partially granted his lawsuit. The tribunal declared the border guard unit's refusal illegal and instructed commanders to re-examine the soldier's discharge request while adhering to the reasoning in the judicial decision.
The border guard unit appealed the judgment to the regional appellate tribunal. In its appeal, the military command argued that three legal conditions must exist simultaneously and be confirmed by documentation to justify discharge on family grounds. The unit contended that a parent or spouse's parent must have a Group I or II disability, the parent must require constant care, and there must be an absence of other first-degree or second-degree relatives capable of providing that care. Commanders claimed the soldier failed to satisfy all three requirements concurrently, emphasizing that the father had a daughter who had not been objectively proven incapable of providing care.
Appellate court findings on medical proof
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and confirmed that the father's Group II disability was fully proven. Medical records showed that a Medical and Social Expert Commission, known as MSEK, established the father's Group II disability status in May 2024 following a general illness.
Addressing the validity of the medical documents, the appellate judges examined the jurisdiction of Medical and Social Expert Commissions alongside Medical Advisory Commissions, known as LKK, as well as Ministry of Health standards and Supreme Court precedents. The court ruled that for individuals with Group II disabilities, care requirements must be determined individually based on personal health and self-care capacity. The panel concluded that in the absence of a specialized Ministry of Health form for illness-related care, LKK conclusions under Form Number 080-4/o and other LKK documents serve as admissible legal proof of constant care needs.
The appellate judges dismissed the military unit's arguments regarding the insufficiency of the medical paperwork. The court emphasized that constant care by its nature demands the daily and continuous physical presence of the caregiver alongside the person receiving support. The judges noted that such care cannot be performed remotely or through occasional visits. Consequently, the appellate panel affirmed that the border guard detachment acted unlawfully when denying the discharge.
The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal partially satisfied the military unit's appeal by modifying the legal reasoning of the initial judgment while leaving the remainder of the Ternopil court's ruling in effect.
Broader mobilization legal developments
The legal dispute comes amid broader judicial scrutiny of Ukrainian mobilization procedures. News agency UNIAN previously reported on a conscription case involving a man liable for military service who refused call-up on religious grounds after completing a Military Medical Board examination, known as a VLK.
The man had been placed on the military register and passed his medical exam on June 7, 2024, where doctors found him fit for service within support units, training centers, medical detachments, and logistics formations. On the same day, authorities issued him a notice to report to a Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support, known as a TCK and SP, for active service. When he failed to appear, prosecutors initiated court proceedings. The man partially admitted guilt in court, stating that he was prepared to perform state service but requested an assignment that did not require handling weapons.
In another legal clarification, lawyer Olena Voronkova explained that workers who hold official employment deferments remain subject to military registration duties. While reserved employees receive temporary exemptions from mobilization, Voronkova noted that reservation status does not remove an individual from military registers or alter their status as a person liable for military service. Consequently, recruitment centers may issue summonses to reserved workers to complete administrative registration procedures, and employees cannot ignore such notices simply because they hold deferred status.
