AF won’t court-martial F-16 pilots

  • Published
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (AFPN) --  The 8th Air Force commander announced decisions regarding the Tarnak Farms “friendly-fire” cases of Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach on June 19. Neither pilot will be referred to trial by court-martial.

The two Illinois Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots from the 170th Fighter Squadron faced a variety of charges stemming from the April 17, 2002, incident that killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others near Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan.

After reviewing the evidence and the Article 32 hearing officer’s recommendations, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson decided the following:

-- Regarding Umbach, Carlson issued a letter of reprimand to the major for his leadership failures as the lead pilot in the two-ship flight. Umbach recently submitted a requested to retire from the Air Force, and Carlson said he intends to recommend that his request be granted.

-- Carlson initiated nonjudicial-punishment proceedings for Schmidt under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The proceedings permit commanders to examine whether a military member should be held accountable for criminal offenses specified in the UCMJ, unless the servicemember demands trial by court-martial.

Under Article 15 proceedings, a member is notified by his commander of the nature of the charged offenses, the evidence supporting them and the intent to impose nonjudicial punishment. A member may consult with defense counsel to determine whether to accept the proceedings or demand trial. Acceptance of the proceedings is not an admission of guilt.

If Schmidt chooses the nonjudicial-punishment forum, the proceedings will examine the allegations that the wingman failed to ensure that the target he attacked was not friendly, failed to acknowledge and follow the direction of his flight leader to make sure that the target was not friendly and failed to stand by as directed by the airborne warning and control system aircraft.

A member who accepts nonjudicial-punishment proceedings is entitled to present matters in defense, extenuation and mitigation, orally, in writing or both. If the commander concludes that the member has committed one or more offenses, punishment may be imposed.

The maximum punishment that a general officer may impose under Article 15 on an officer includes forfeiture of one half of one-month’s pay per month for two months, arrest in quarters for 30 days, restriction to specified geographical limits for 60 days and a reprimand.

Carlson also formally recommended that Schmidt’s actions be reviewed by a flying-evaluation board to determine whether he should be permitted to fly Air Force aircraft in the future. A board review is not dependent on the outcome of the separate Article 15 action.