Lithuanian court upholds dismissal of cadet from Military Academy for intoxication

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has ruled that the dismissal of a cadet from the General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania for being intoxicated while on duty was lawful, LRT reported on Wednesday.

The court rejected the cadet’s appeal last week, upholding a lower court’s decision that the academy’s dismissal was justified. The Regional Administrative Court had previously confirmed the legality of the academy’s action.

An investigation found that the cadet was visibly intoxicated on academy grounds during service hours. Breathalyser tests recorded blood alcohol levels of 1.72‰ and 1.67‰ in two separate measurements. Following a disciplinary review, the cadet was expelled from the institution.

The dismissed cadet did not dispute the fact of intoxication but argued that the disciplinary process was flawed. They claimed the academy applied an incorrect version of the military’s disciplinary statute—the one in force at the time of the violation—and failed to adequately consider mitigating circumstances, the nature of the offence, or principles of proportionality and legitimate expectations.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the disciplinary procedure had followed all legal requirements, with sufficient evidence gathered to confirm the violation. Judges noted that the correct version of the disciplinary statute—the one active when the offence occurred—was applied, dismissing claims of procedural errors.

Under military regulations, intoxication while on duty carries a single prescribed penalty: expulsion from the academy. The court classified such violations as formal offences, meaning no additional consequences need to be proven for disciplinary action. While the lower court’s decision had incorrectly listed intoxication as an aggravating factor (as it constitutes the offence itself), the Supreme Court deemed this error non-substantive and insufficient to overturn the ruling.

Judges also highlighted the cadet’s prior disciplinary record, treating this as a repeat offence.