Good question. Dereliction of duty could just as easily be charged against someone for failing to fire on an enemy. The court will have to decide on the basis of what level of proof is required before a military response is justified. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would seem to be to stringent for battlefield conditions. "A preponderance of evidence" seems more likely. And given that the decision to use military force sometimes requires split-second judgement, there is no guarantee that one has time to even consider all available evidence.
I predict an acquittal based on the fact that I have heard that there were procedures for identifying friendly forces and that I have not heard that the pilots failed to carry them out.