Understanding the question of what kind of desertion from the army will be based on the distinction between two concepts: unauthorized abandonment of a military unit (“AWOL”) and desertion itself. Actually, these are legal categories, and an ordinary person is not required to understand them. However, it is better for a soldier to study such moments in detail - anything can happen in life, if you are going to resort to extreme measures, make sure that you choose the least evil possible. While there are no “best” options, there are differences in responsibilities and consequences.
Important! It should be remembered that there are no options for classifying such actions as a misdemeanor - this is clearly a crime, because liability is provided for by criminal law. Accordingly, you will have such a dirty spot on your “record”. Such risks should only be taken as a last resort.
Why do they run away from the army?
Our parents and grandparents are accustomed to perceiving the army not as a blessing, but as a duty that a man must undergo. This attitude is understandable, given the provision of the Soviet army. However, the current situation is not so rosy - funding is spent on armaments, but the life of soldiers leaves much to be desired. The most common reason for “escapes” is precisely the inability to tolerate the living conditions provided in the barracks any longer. Even a good privateer will not save you if there are dirty floors, broken tiles, stench and holes in the walls of the toilet - a fairly common sight in remote regions of the country.
Also, many soldiers do not have good relationships with the team. Although hazing has practically died out, remaining more of an episodic phenomenon than a practice, when faced with such a problem, not every person will survive, even under the threat of criminal punishment. You may just end up with a bad platoon, where there are marginalized people and people who are unpleasant to communicate with and live together with. This sometimes ends in beatings; constant conflicts and fear for one’s health, of course, negatively affect the psychological state of soldiers.
Important! Even if you have a reason to try to escape from the unit, it is better to try a couple of times to resolve the issue in other ways. Do not take this as a “set-up” of your own - just go to the commander and ask to transfer you. As a last resort, write a complaint; its presence can become a decisive argument in the event of litigation.
Often the reason is family reasons - illness of a loved one, childbirth, etc. In general, you should be fired in this case, but sometimes this is impossible for objective reasons. Here you should also talk to management first, because criminal liability is too high a price. Of course, the tribunal can take into account the circumstances, but this does not always happen in favor of the soldier.
Judicial practice under the article
Let us give a couple of examples from judicial practice under Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Junior Sergeant S., without objective reasons, left the military hospital where he was being treated and did not come to his unit for a whole month. The military commissar pointed out to him the need to return to service, but he did not comply with this requirement.
It is worth explaining here that unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service is considered abandonment of any place on the territory of the unit, including a hospital , therefore junior sergeant S. committed a crime by leaving the hospital without a good reason.
The actions of sailor B. were determined by the military court of the Fokinsky garrison under Part 4 of Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since he left his military unit for more than a month. During the investigation, it was established that sailor B. left his place of service because after the death of his mother he was left with a little brother and sister and an old grandmother, for whom constant care was needed, and he remained the only breadwinner of the family.
Such circumstances were recognized as valid reasons for leaving service, so all charges against sailor B. were dropped, and he himself was transferred to the reserve.
Responsibility
We said that “AWOL” and “desertion” in the understanding of the criminal code are different concepts, and accordingly, the sanctions for such offenses are also different. Since desertion is considered a more socially dangerous act, a more severe punishment is provided for it, the court will be more biased towards the accused (of course, the court must be impartial, but in practice everyone understands that the judge is also a person). We also immediately note that there is one option when you can avoid criminal punishment - if the unauthorized abandonment of the part was committed for a period not exceeding 2 days - this is considered a minor act for which a reprimand will be received, but no more.
So, there are such sanctions for “AWOL”:
- six months of a guardhouse or one year of a disciplinary battalion - in case of leaving the unit for 2-10 days, without aggravating circumstances;
- repeated offense – 2 years disobedience;
- for periods from 10 days to a month - either two years of disobedience, or three years of imprisonment - this will be decided by the court, when the circumstances are established;
- if you left the unit for more than thirty days, the maximum penalty will be five years in prison.
Of course, the Law provides that if it is established that the offense was a consequence of difficult life circumstances, the accused may be released from criminal liability.
There are only two types of sanctions for desertion - if there are no aggravating ones, the soldier faces up to seven years in prison, if they are present - from 7 to 10 years. Agree, temporary rest is not worth it, because then you will have to “hide” for about 10 years for the statute of limitations to expire. In modern realities of fairly strict control, this is unlikely. Therefore, we advise you to take such a step only as a last resort - you should understand whether you will be able to justify the circumstances that caused your escape.
When is it considered an offense?
The offense will be considered completed at the moment when the employee in the army under contract or conscription leaves his place of service or military unit or the period of his legal absence there has expired (the period of vacation or business trip has ended).
Objective and subjective sides
The objective side of the act is the commission of one of the acts listed in Article 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The subjective side consists of deliberate evasion of one’s service, that is, the citizen is fully aware of the illegality of the offense he is committing, but still allows it.
Also, the offender’s goals include only a temporary reluctance to be at the place of duty and not complete evasion from the performance of his official duties.
Objects and subjects of crimes
The object of the offense is the procedure for serving employees in the army, which is regulated by statutes, Federal Law No. 76 of May 27, 1998, and other legislative acts.
The subjects of the acts are:
- employees in the army who perform official duties upon conscription (soldiers serving on conscription; cadets of military educational institutions before they signed a contract; cadets who were expelled from the above institutions before they signed a contract, etc.) ;
- employees under the age of 27 serving in the army under a contract or discharged earlier than the period specified in this contract, unless they are entitled to premature resignation or dismissal.
What evidence is presented?
The proof is an overdue period of dismissal or business trip. The documents indicate their deadlines, so it is easy to see that the citizen did not show up for duty on time.
In the event of an unauthorized failure to appear at a place of service in the army, the very fact of this failure to appear is recorded , and it is also checked whether the citizen was really obliged to fulfill his official duties during this period of time.
Particular attention is paid to whether the soldier in the army had objective reasons for leaving his unit. To do this, his marital status and the state of his family’s finances are analyzed.
Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in 2020-2021
In Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, namely sub. “a” clause 6 states that in case of absenteeism, the employer can legally dismiss the employee. In this case, the conditions mentioned earlier must be met.
But should a manager always fire an employee for absenteeism? This article gives him the right to do this, but does not establish such an obligation. Legislators leave the right of choice to the company's management. It can reprimand the employee, reprimand him or simply leave absenteeism unattended.
In some cases, the dismissal of an employee is possible due to him going on unauthorized leave without warning management. Every enterprise must have an annual vacation schedule. It is brought to the attention of employees. Lack of a schedule is considered a violation of labor laws.
Find out how to properly create a vacation schedule and download the form on our website. Read the article “Vacation schedule - form and sample for filling out in 2021.”
But in any case, going on vacation without the approval of management is a violation of labor discipline, and the employee may be held accountable for absenteeism.
You may also find these articles useful:
- “How to properly arrange leave followed by dismissal?”;
- “Order for annual paid leave - sample and form”.
Sometimes it happens that absenteeism ends the employee’s desire to resign of his own free will. The employee writes a letter of resignation and, without working for 2 weeks, does not go to work at the scheduled time.
If an employer dismisses an employee for absenteeism, he makes a corresponding note in his work book with reference to Art. 81 Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 337 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2021 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated June 25, 2021 N 18 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF CRIMES,...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 17, 2021 N 43 ON SOME ISSUES OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES...
- Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
- Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 13, 2018 N 578-O THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION RULING dated March 13, 2018 N 578-O ON THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT A CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT FOR CONSIDERATION...
Long absence: difficulties of dismissal
The management of B-s LLC approached the board with the following problem. Employees E. and L., who work as drivers in this organization for about six months, do not appear at work for almost three weeks. Attempts to reach them by phone were unsuccessful. Taking into account the fact that E. and L. have permanent residence in another locality, it was also not possible to visit them at home. They also did not show up at their place of temporary residence in a hostel in Moscow during these three weeks. The HR service indicated to these employees “NA” (absence due to unknown circumstances) on the time sheet for all days of their absence from the workplace. Also, the absence of E. and L. was registered from the first day of absence from work.
What was recommended to be done:
- check with colleagues in the transport department whether there have been any expressions of dissatisfaction with work, management, etc. on the part of the missing employees, whether they mentioned in conversations the possibility of termination of work in the organization.
As a result of a survey of colleagues E. and L., it turned out that they were talking about returning to their native village in order to visit their families and then try their hand at another job;
- send telegrams to the permanent registration addresses of employees E. and L. with a request to provide an explanation of the reasons for absence from work.
Employee E. received the telegram personally; the telegram addressed to employee L. was received by his wife;
- then it was recommended to wait about 5 days for a response from E. and L., and then issue orders for their dismissal for absenteeism.
The said employees did not provide explanations about what the corresponding acts were drawn up;
- on the day the orders were issued (the orders recorded the fact that it was impossible to bring the contents of the orders to the attention of workers), it was recommended to send telegrams to both E. and L. with a request to come to receive a work book or to consent to its sending by mail.
As a result, the issue was resolved; the dismissed employees did not go to court with claims to declare the dismissal illegal.
In this case, the employer reliably established that employees E. and L. did not disappear under unclear circumstances, that they went home and decided not to return to work. The absentees did not provide valid reasons for their absence from work; they did not in any way show any intention to continue working at B-s LLC. Therefore, taking into account all the above circumstances, the employer made the right decision - to fire these employees for absenteeism.
