20130424-013764

20130424-013764 24
CENTCOM. The database itself appeared to lack the fields necessary to accurately track
progress of all awards from begimting to end. Also, testi:fied she had clit6culty getting
her people to maintain the database. She and other witnesses questioned the integrity of the
database and the ability of the awards section pers01mel to 11se it effectively.
Although the CJTF-1 0 J slides indicated CPT Swenson's recommendation was
transmitted to CENTCOM, neither offlcer responsible for the slides remembered updating them
to reflect changes jn CPT Swenson's statu~. One of the officers had no recollection whatsoever
of CPT Swenson's award. It was significant that CENTCOM found an email that showed
USFOR-A transmitted SPC Carter's recommendation to CENTCOM on August 16,2010, bul
neither CENTCOM nor the USFOR-A J-6 could find in their systems a sjmilar record of
transmission for CPT Swenson's recommendation. Accordingly, we found CENTCOM did not
receive the reconunendation.
Finally, we found Army HRC did not receive the recommendation. The CJTF-101 slides
in the USFOR-A investigation indicated transmittal to HRC, b11t we did not find any evidence to
conoborate this. Emails from 2010 and a memorandum from 2011 indicated HRC did not
receive CPT Swenson's original reconunendation. An HRC official reiterated this in response to
our request for assistance. We could not reconcile why the CJTF -101 slides reflected transmittal
to HRC in December 20 l 0, when the last entry in the USFOR-A awards database i11dicated tbe
package was at CENTCOM. The.officer responsible for the CJTF ~ lOl slides at that time did not
remember CPT Swenson's award recommendation.
AR 600-8-22, "Military Awards," identi-fies the President as the approval authority for
the Mo.H, prohibits subordinate commanders from disapproving or retunting MoH
recommendations, requiJes routing them to Anny HRC for final processing aftet obtaining all
necessary endorsements and recommendations, and requires the MoH receive priority during
processing.
We determined that CPT Swenson's MoH reconunendation was not processed in
accordance with AR 600-8-22 because the USFOR-A J-1 awards section did not promptly
fot:ward it after GEN Petraeus' review and failed to accurately track and report its status. This
was inconsistent with the requirement to route MoH recouunendations on a priority basis
tluough the endorsemenl chain to Army HRC. We also determined tbat the VSFOR-A J-1
awards section section bad inadequate systems and lmreliable processes, which may have
contrib11ted to the failure to fully process CPT Swenson's MoH recommendation. Further, we
determined that GEN PelTaeus' recommendatioJl to dowograde the award was within hjs
discretion and did not violate AR 600-8-22. There was no evidence that a senior official
mishandled, lost, destroyed, plll'ged, disposed of, or mmecessarily delayed the recommendation.
V. CONCLUSION
The Commander, USFOR-A, properly endorsed CPT Swenson's original MoH
recommendation, but the USFOR-A J-1 awards section did not forward it lo HQ, CENTCOM.
F~Il: ~FFieii: 'ds YSE ~l Tis Y