RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01195
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.00
      350-42-9512                            COUNSEL:  None

      STEVEN M. TORGERSON               HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 OCTOBER 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  by  Special
Selection Boards (SSBs)  for  the  CY03B  and  CY04C  Colonel  Central
Selection Boards to correct assignment errors.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Assignment errors  have  prevented  him  from  being  competitive  for
promotion to  the  grade  of  colonel.  A  definite  promote  (DP)  to
lieutenant colonel should have allowed him a MAJCOM position  or  wing
chaplain slot. For two assignments after his  DP,  he  didn’t  receive
either. This discrepancy happened to no one making colonel in his year
groups. He even had to fight for his assignment to Osan despite  being
recommended by MAJCOM and DPAH.

He has received nothing but the highest accolades from his  commanders
and supervisors. Even so, good assignments were given  to  others.  He
believes this is due to the small size of his denomination. A  7th-day
Adventists has never had a colonel Air Force Chaplain. They have never
had one in a MAJCOM position.  He  did  not  think  these  events  are
coincidental. He should be judged, in comparison with others,  by  the
one leadership position he has had, and not lose standing for lack  of
assignments for which he was not selected.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a letter from  the  Chief
of Chaplains, a copy of AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, a  copy
of his OPR, and a flyer.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.

The applicant has two non-selections to the grade of colonel by  CY03B
and CY04C Colonel Central Selection Boards.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAH  recommends  denial  and  states  they  find  unfounded  the
applicant’s assertion that he was not given leadership assignments  in
the Chaplain Service after his promotion to Lt Col and therefore  they
find no basis to his argument that his religious denomination was  the
cause of poor assignment progression. In spite of these findings, they
do concur with the functional leadership of the Chaplain Service  that
the only equitable avenue may be to grant an SSB.

At the time when his promotion to Lt Col was released,  the  applicant
was serving as the senior protestant chaplain at Kirtland AFB, NM. The
assignment to Kirtland, made in the late spring of 1998 from Elmendorf
where he was the senior protestant, was made with the knowledge of the
applicant’s DP to Lt Col. This was a lateral move  given  to  a  known
“DP.” In 1999, as a Lt Col select, he was considered for a  leadership
position by the DPAW wing and staff chaplain leadership board. He  was
selected for a leadership position and given an assignment to  HQ  AIA
as the  agency  staff  chaplain.  Research  reveals  that  of  the  23
chaplains promoted (CY98B) 16 remain on active duty.

In  2001,  the  applicant  was  considered  for  his  next  leadership
position. He was selected  for  a  two-year  assignment  as  the  wing
chaplain at Osan AB, ROK. In 2003, the applicant  was  considered  for
continued leadership and was selected  to  serve  as  staff  chaplain,
plans and programs, HQ USAF/HC, Bolling AFB DC. These assignments from
senior protestant chaplain, to  an  HAF  agency  assignment,  to  wing
chaplain  and  then  on  to  Air  Staff,  are  in  line  with  officer
professional development. Rotations every  two  years  from  Kirtland,
AIA, Osan, and Air Staff indicate strong force development.

AFPC/DPAH’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial.  AFPC/DPAH  states   the   applicant’s
assertions in regards  to  his  lack  of  leadership  assignments  are
unsubstantiated and clarifies that each position he held was  in  line
with appropriate officer professional development.  As  such,  coupled
with the fact that the  applicant  is  requesting  no  change  to  his
selection record, there are no grounds for SSB consideration.

AFPC/DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that he is
bewildered by AFPC/DPAH’s response. First,  it  just  isn’t  true.  He
received a DP to Lt Col while he was  senior  protestant  chaplain  at
Elmendorf AFB, AK. To check  the  veracity  of  his  statement  please
contact Maj Gen G__ at Nellis AFB, NV. He was the one who  fought  for
his DP. He was at Elmendorf when he  received  his  DP  and  that  was
before receiving the assignment to Kirtland AFB,  NM.  Gen  G__  could
also tell you the wing commander at Elmendorf, Brig Gen L__, requested
him for his wing chaplain when he moved to Holloman AFB,  NM.  He  was
turned down. He stands by  facts--he  was  sent  to  a  smaller  base,
Kirtland, in the same position, senior protestant, after getting a  DP
to Lt Col. If this is standard procedure then why was  the  next  wing
chaplain, assigned to Kirtland, a major (Lt Col  select).  Two  things
were different between us. He had a DP to Lt  Col.  He  was  from  the
chief of chaplains denomination.

Even on the face of it, it seems odd to send  someone  to  a  parallel
position at a smaller base. Although he has not checked the records of
those promoted to colonel, he bet none of them were sent  to  parallel
positions after making it to lieutenant colonel. Even Maj Gen B__,  in
his supporting letter, states he didn’t receive the  MAJCOM  and  wing
assignments evenhanded treatment would have afforded.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, in  our
opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate  Air  Force
offices adequately address those allegations.  In  this  respect,  the
Board notes that  the  Air  Force  indicates  that  the  applicant  is
requesting no change to his selection records and there are no grounds
for  an  SSB  consideration.  Further,  applicant  appears   to   seek
additional SSB consideration by reviewers who will  judge  his  record
using criteria applicant prefers; in any event, this is a request  the
Board would be powerless to grant. Therefore, we agree  with  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01195 in Executive Session on 9 August 2005, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAH, dated 22 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Jun 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair

                       AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                             OF MILITARY RECORDS

                   CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NO:

STEVEN M. TORGERSON, 350-42-9512  BC-2005-01195


ROUTE IN TURN    INITIALS  DATE


1.  CHIEF EXAMINER     ________  ________
    (Coord/Signature)

2.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ________  ________
    (Coordination)

3.  Mr. Laurence M. Groner
    PANEL CHAIR
    (Signature on Proceedings)    ________  ________

4.  AFBCMR (Processing)





                                 DANIEL C. MILLER
                                 Examiner
                                 Air Force Board for Correction
                                 of Military Records

AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive EE Wing 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002

Lt Col Steven M. Torgerson, USAF
HQ USAF/HCX
112 Luke Ave Carpenter Bldg 5683, Stu 309
Bolling AFB, Washington D.C. 20032

Dear Colonel Torgerson

      Reference your application, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01195,
submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence
for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional
evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




                       RALPH J. PRETE
                       Chief Examiner
                       Air Force Board for Correction
                       of Military Records


Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings