ShareThis Page
Air Force rejects pilot’s appeal in botched bombing |

Air Force rejects pilot’s appeal in botched bombing

The Associated Press
| Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:00 a.m

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — A U.S. fighter pilot who mistakenly bombed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, killing four and injuring eight, has lost an appeal of his reprimand, officials announced Monday.

Earlier this month, Maj. Harry Schmidt was found guilty of dereliction of duty and was ordered to forfeit more than $5,000 in pay.

Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, who handed down the verdict, said in a letter of reprimand that Schmidt “acted shamefully” and exhibited “arrogance and a lack of flight discipline” in the April 17, 2002, bombing.

In his appeal, Schmidt said the reprimand was issued as a “desire to mount a public relations campaign rather than actually attempt to see justice done.”

But the Air Force announced yesterday that Carlson had rejected Schmidt’s appeal. The case will be forwarded to Gen. Hal Homberg, commander of the Air Force combat command, for a final decision, the Air Force said.

Schmidt, 39, said he mistook the Canadians’ gunfire for an attack from Taliban fighters. The pilot said his superiors never told him that the Canadians would be conducting live-fire exercises near Kandahar airport that night.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.