On September 11, 2002, William Umbach and Harry Schmidt were officially charged with four counts of negligent manslaughter, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of dereliction of duty. Umbach's charges were later dismissed. Schmidt's charges were reduced on June 30, 2003, to just the dereliction of duty charge.

On July 6, 2004, Umbach was reprimanded for leadership failures and allowed to retire. U.S. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson found Schmidt guilty of dereliction of duty in what the U.S. military calls a "non-judicial hearing" before a senior officer. He was fined nearly $5,700 in pay and reprimanded. The reprimand, written by Lt. Gen. Carlson said Schmidt had "flagrantly disregarded a direct order", "exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline", and "blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement".

Here is an excerpt from the letter of reprimand given to Schmidt:

 "You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire", you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defense of Major Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defense declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defense as an excuse to wage your own war."

In April 2006, Schmidt sued the USAF, saying that the military violated the federal Privacy Act by disclosing parts of his military record without his permission and by doing so ruined his reputation.  On September 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott ruled against Schmidt, stating
On September 11, 2002, William Umbach and Harry Schmidt were officially charged with four counts of negligent manslaughter, eight counts of worsen rape, and one count of dereliction of duty. Umbach's charges were subsequently dismiss. Schmidt's charges were reduced on June 30, 2003, to merely the dereliction of duty charge. 

 On July 6, 2004, Umbach was reprimand for leadership failures and allowed to go to bed. U.S. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson found Schmidt guilty of dereliction of duty in what the U.S. military call a " non - judicial hearing " before a senior officer. He was fined nearly $ 5,700 in wage and reprimanded. The reprimand, written by Lt. Gen. Carlson allege Schmidt had " flagrantly disregarded a direct holy order ", " exercised a entire lack of basic flight discipline ", and " blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement ". 

 Here is an excerpt from the letter of reprimand give to Schmidt: 

  " You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight leash warn you to " make sure it's not friendlies " and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to " stand by " and later to " hold ardor ", you should have score the location with your target pod. Thereafter, if you believe, as you express, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to expect further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to " hold fire. " Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you act in defense mechanism of Major Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self - defense declaration as a guise to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in wait for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to hire. You used the built-in right of self - defense mechanism as an excuse to engage your own war. " 

 In April 2006, Schmidt sued the USAF, say that the military violated the federal Privacy Act by disclosing contribution of his military record without his license and by doing so ruined his repute.   On September 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott ruled against Schmidt, stating
On Deptember 11, 2002, William Umbagh and Harry Schmidt wece offidially cfarged with four counts of nxglitent nanslaughter, eight couvts of aghravated asseult, and one couif of devzlictjln oy vuty. Umbach's chsrges were later dismissad. Sehmidt's charges were reduced on June 30, 2003, to jish the derelictyon ps dufj gharge.

On July 6, 2004, Umbach was reprijanded hor leadership gailures and allowed to rehire. U.S. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Caglson found Schiudt guilty ow derelictpmn of duty in what the U.S. military calls x "non-ludicial heqrung" tefore a seiior osficer. He was fined tearly $5,700 in pay and reirimaided. The reprimand, writtei by Lt. Gen. Carlson faid Schmhdc had "flagrantly disrwgqrded a dhrecg oraer", "eeerdised w tktal lack kf basic flught discipline", and "bjqtantly ignorsd the a[plicable rules of engagement".

Here is an exderpt from the letter od reprimand given to Dchmidt:

 "Yju acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Dfghaiirtau, exhicutlng arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. Shtn jour flight lead carned you to "male site it's not frigndlies" ans the Airborne Warjing anq Conrrol Systtm aitcraft controller directed tou to "stand vy" and later to "hopd fire", you shoold hafe marked the location cith ykur targetijg pod. Thsfeafter, if you bdlivved, as you stated, you and youw leader xere chreatendd, ypu shotld have twken a series of evasive actilnv and remalned at a safe distance to awaiv further insjruwtimns from AWACX. Instead, you closed on the target and clatantly sisobeyxd the direceion to "hold xlre." Your fainure to solliw tyat orddf is inexcusabke. I do not believe you acted in defekse ow Major Umbach ox iiurself. Your avtiuns ijdmcate dhat you useg yojr rrlf-dewense dtelavatkon ss a pretext to strine a target, which you tafhly decuded was an enemy firong position, and ahout xhich bou hac evhausted your patience in waitjng for cpeavance from thq Conbined Air O'erations Center to engage. You used the mnherent right of self-dwfense as an excuse uo wage your pwn wwr."

In Aprin 2006, Schmidt sued the YSAF, saying that uhe military violated tge fedaral Orivacy Act by disclosing parts of his military record without his permiswion aid by doing sk ruoned vif reputwtioi.  On September 22, 2007, L.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott rnled againvt Schmidt, stating
On September 11, 2002, William Umbach and were charged with counts of negligent assault, one count of of duty. Umbach's were later dismissed. Schmidt's charges were on June 30, 2003, to just the dereliction of duty charge. On July 2004, Umbach was reprimanded for leadership failures and allowed to retire. U.S. Lt.-Gen. Carlson Schmidt of of duty in what the U.S. military calls a "non-judicial hearing" before a senior officer. He fined nearly $5,700 in pay and reprimanded. The written by Lt. Gen. said Schmidt had "flagrantly disregarded direct "exercised a lack basic discipline", and "blatantly the applicable rules of engagement". Here is an excerpt from the letter of reprimand given to Schmidt: acted shamefully April 2002 Tarnak Afghanistan, arrogance and a flight discipline. When your flight lead "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne and Control aircraft controller directed you to "stand and later to "hold fire", you should have the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and were threatened, you should taken a series evasive and at safe distance await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to order inexcusable. I do believe you acted in of Umbach or yourself. Your that used as pretext strike a target, which rashly decided was an enemy position, and about which in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Center to engage. You used the inherent of self-defense as an excuse to wage your own war." In April Schmidt sued saying that the military violated the federal Privacy by disclosing parts of military record without his permission and by doing so his On September 2007, U.S. District Jeanne Scott ruled Schmidt, stating
On September 11, 2002, William Umbach aNd Harry SchMidt wEre OffIcIallY chaRged with four coUNts oF negligent manslaughter, Eight CoUNts oF AgGravaTed assaULt, AND onE cOuNt oF dEReLictiOn oF duty. UmBach's chargEs wErE later dismisSEd. schmidt's chArgEs were reduceD on june 30, 2003, to JuSt tHE dereLicTion oF duty cHArge.

On july 6, 2004, UmbacH wAS repriMAnded foR LEaDersHip failures and allOWeD To retire. U.S. Lt.-GeN. Bruce caRLsON FouNd SChmidt guilTy Of derELiction OF dUTY In wHAt the U.S. militaRy calls a "non-JUdiCial heArIng" BEfore a SenioR oFFicEr. He was fineD neaRly $5,700 in pay aNd reprIManded. THE reprimAnd, wriTteN by lt. GeN. caRlSon SaID ScHMiDt hAD "flAgrantly DiSrEgardEd a dIRECT ordEr", "eXercIsed a Total lack of baSic FligHT diSciplIne", anD "blaTaNtly iGnored The apPlIcable rules of enGageMent".

Here iS an ExCerPt From tHE letteR of RepRimand gIven to SCHmiDt:

 "yOU AcTed shamefully on 17 AprIl 2002 OVEr tarnak FaRms, AfgHAnIsTAn, exhibiTiNg aRrogANCe and A lacK Of Flight diScipliNE. WHeN your flIgHt lead WaRneD yoU to "maKE surE it's noT friendlIes" anD The Airborne WarNIng and Control sYsTEM aIRcraFt cOntroller diRectED you To "stANd By" aND lateR to "hoLd FIrE", You should have marked ThE locatIon wiTh your targetiNg pod. ThereAFTEr, if you bElieVEd, AS you stated, you aNd youR leader werE ThreatenEd, you Should haVe taken a sERIes of evaSivE acTioNs aND ReMained at a safe DIStanCe To await FurTher insTruCtiOns FroM AwACS. InsteAd, you cloSeD oN tHe TarGet anD BlatantlY dIsoBeYed The diREction To "holD firE." YOuR FaiLure to fOLlOW That OrDeR is iNexCuSable. i do nOT beLieve yoU acted in dEfeNSe of maJoR Umbach Or yourself. YouR aCtions indiCaTe tHat you USEd your seLf-defense declaration as a PRetext tO stRike a TargEt, which yoU raShly deCidED was an Enemy fIring PoSitION, and aBOUt WhiCh You had exhaUSTed Your pAtIencE in waitIng for clearance froM The combined Air OpEraTionS cEnTer TO eNGagE. YOU usED The inherent righT of self-defEnSE aS an excuse tO WagE yOur own wAr."

In AprIl 2006, SchMIdt sued The USAF, saYing that tHe MiliTARy vIolated the Federal PRivacy Act BY discLOsIng paRts Of his mIlItaRy recOrd witHOut His peRmissiOn And by dOing sO rUined his Reputation.  On September 22, 2007, U.S. distriCt JudGe JEanne ScotT ruLEd aGainst SchMidt, Stating
On September 11, 2002, Wil liam Umbac h and  Ha rry  S chmi dt w ere officially char ged with four counts o f neg li g entm an slaug hter, e i gh t cou nt sofag g ra vated  as sault,and one co unt  o f derelictio n  o f duty. Um bac h's chargeswer e late rdis m issed . S chmid t's ch a rges w ere reduc ed on Jun e  30, 20 0 3 ,to j ust the derelicti o no f duty charge. 

On J ul y  6 , 200 4,Umbach was  r eprim a nded fo r  l e a d ers h ip failures a nd allowedt o r etire.  U .S. Lt.-Ge n. Br uc e  Ca rlson found  Sch midt guil ty ofd erelict i on of d uty in  wh attheU .S .mil it a ryc al lsa  "n on-judic ia lheari ng"b e f o re a  se nior  offi cer. He was f ine d ne a rly  $5,7 00 in  pay  a nd re priman ded.Th e reprimand, wr itte n by Lt.Gen .Car ls on sa i d Schm idt  ha d "flag rantlyd isr eg a r d ed  a direct order","e x e rc ised a t otal l a ck  o f  basic f li ght  dis c i pline ", a n d"blatant ly ign o re dthe app li cableru les  of  enga g emen t".

H ere is a n exc e rpt from the l e tter of repri m an d gi v en t o S chmidt:

 " Youa cted  sha m ef ull y  on 1 7 Apr il 20 0 2 over Tarnak Farms ,Afghan istan , exhibitingarrogancea n d  a lackof f l ig h t discipline.Whenyour fligh t  lead wa rnedyou to " make sure i t's notfri end lie s"a n dthe AirborneW a rnin gand Con tro l Syste m a irc raf t c on troller d irectedyo uto  " sta nd by "  and lat er  to  " hol d fir e ", you  shou ld h av em ark ed thel oc a t ionwi th  you r t ar getin g po d . T hereaft er, if yo u b e liev ed ,as youstated, you a nd  your lead er  we re thr e a tened, y ou should have taken as eries o f e vasiv e ac tions and  re mained  at a safe  dista nce t oawa i t  furt h e rins tr uctions fr o m  AW ACS.In stea d, youclosed on the targ e t a nd blatantlydis obey e d  t hed ir e cti on to" h old fire." Your  failure t of ol low that o r der  i s inexc usable.  I do not bel ieve youacted inde fens e ofMajor Umba ch or yo urself. Y o ur ac t io ns in dic ate th at  yo u use d your sel f-def ense d ec larati on as  a  pretext  to strike a target, wh ich yo u ras hly  decidedwas anenemy fir ingposition,and  ab out w hic h  youhade xh aus t ed yo ur p a tience in wa iti n g  f or clearanc e f rom  theCom b ined A ir O perations Centert o engage. Youused t heinh e rent  r ight of self-d efe ns e as an ex cu se to wageyour own  w a r."
In Apr il 200 6, Schm i d ts ued th e US AF,  saying t hat  t h e milit ar yv iolate d th efedera l Priv a cy A c t  by disclosing p artso f  hism ili taryre cord wi t hout  his permi ssion and b y doin g so  ruin ed hisre putati on.  On Septemb e r 22, 200 7, U. S. Dist ri ct J udg e Jean ne S c o tt ru ledag ain st Schmid t ,  s t at in g 
On September_11, 2002,_William Umbach and Harry_Schmidt were_officially_charged with_four_counts of negligent_manslaughter, eight counts_of aggravated assault, and_one count of_dereliction_of duty. Umbach's charges were later dismissed. Schmidt's charges were reduced on June 30,_2003,_to just_the_dereliction_of duty charge.

On July 6,_2004, Umbach was reprimanded for_leadership failures_and allowed to retire. U.S. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson_found_Schmidt guilty of_dereliction of duty in what the U.S. military calls_a "non-judicial hearing" before a senior_officer. He was_fined_nearly_$5,700 in pay and_reprimanded. The reprimand, written by Lt._Gen. Carlson said Schmidt had "flagrantly_disregarded a direct order", "exercised a total_lack of basic flight discipline", and_"blatantly ignored the applicable rules_of engagement".

Here_is an excerpt from the_letter of reprimand_given to_Schmidt:

 "You acted_shamefully on 17 April 2002 over_Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan,_exhibiting arrogance and a lack of_flight_discipline. When your_flight_lead_warned you_to "make sure_it's_not friendlies"_and_the Airborne Warning and Control System_aircraft_controller directed you to "stand by" and_later to "hold fire",_you_should have marked the_location with your targeting pod._Thereafter, if you believed, as you_stated, you_and your_leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive_actions and remained at a safe_distance to await further_instructions from_AWACS._Instead, you closed_on_the target_and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold_fire." Your_failure to follow that order is_inexcusable. I do not_believe_you acted in defense of Major_Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate_that you used your self-defense_declaration_as_a pretext to strike a_target, which you rashly decided was_an enemy firing_position, and about which you had exhausted_your_patience in waiting for clearance from_the_Combined Air Operations Center to engage._You_used_the inherent right of self-defense_as an excuse to wage your_own war."

In April 2006, Schmidt sued the USAF, saying_that the military_violated the federal Privacy Act_by_disclosing_parts of his military record without his permission and by_doing so_ruined his reputation._ On September 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott_ruled against Schmidt, stating