20130424-013764

20130424-013764 10
(b)(3), (b)(6)
) initiated the award
recommendation on December 18, 2009. The Department of the
Army (DA) Form 638 could not be tracked ftnthcr than!IHII
(b)(3), (b)(6)
, who signed
recommending approval~ but cUd not date it.
Slides from TF-82 and TF-10 1 suggest the award was submitted
through USFOR-A, Central Cmmnand (CENTCOM), and
subsequently to Human Resources Command (HRC)P However,
thexe was no record of receiving or processing this award at any of
these headquarters. Action officers at USFOR-A, who would have
handled this award, were also contacted and had no knowledge of
the CPT Swenson's Mol-l (Exhibit B). The discrepancy between
the infot'mation on the slides and the actual status of the award
could not be resolved.
(b)(3) (b)(6)
In his concluding remarks, the 10 discussed a MoH award recommendation
also submitted for U.S. Army Specialist (SPC) Ty Cmter, for his actions in a different battle.
The IO wrote:
SPC Ty Carter's MoH was logged and tracked tlu·ough the same
pmcess and has been confirmed at HRC. It is reasonable to
assume tl1at had both SPC Carter's and CPT Swenson's MoH
packets been submitted at the same time, as indicated by the sJides,
botJ1 would have been tracked and processed in the same manner.
The discrepancy between tlte slides and the actual status of CPT
Swenson's award could not be resolved.
(b)(3) (b)(6)
In a sworn statement made as part of th..e USFOR-A investigation,
(b)(3) ibX6l
stated she contacted a CENTCOM
staff officer who did not find anything about CPT Swenson's award on CENTCOM's intemal
tt'acking system.
(b)( 3) (b)(6)
July 2011 statement to the USFOR-A 10 indicated she
directed one of her pe1sonnel to contact HRC, and this person reported that HRC did not have a
record of an award for CPT Swenson. The USFOR-A IO stated he contacted an awards analysis
technician at HRC, who conducted a database search and fOtmd no record for CPT Swenson.
Fmiher, the correspondence between HQMC and Army HRC, introduced above, ind1cated Army
HRC did not receive the original MoH recommendation on CPT Swenson.
On A1.1gnst 5, 2011, an administrative law attorney in the Office ofthe Staff h1dge
Advocate, USFOR·A, found the report was legally sufficient. The attorney noted CPT Swenson
12
The slides to which the USFOR-A IO referred were CJ'fF-Jevel briefing cl1arts used to present the status of award
recommendations as various echelons processed them aud reported their status back to lower echelons. We describe
the contents of the briefing charts later in this section of our report.
F~fl iFFiii:bis Wkilii ilik Y