Docket No: 2995-20 
Ref: Signature Date           

 
Dear : 
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
Although you did not file your application in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 
 
You enlisted in the Navy and began a period of active duty on 27 August 2002.  On 24 February 2005, you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect and wrongful use of a controlled substance.  You were awarded forfeiture of pay for two months, restriction and extra duties for 30 days, and reduction in rank to E-2.  On 25 February 2005, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.  After consulting with Counsel, you elected to have a hearing before an administrative discharge board (ADB).  Subsequently, an ADB voted that you committed misconduct and recommended your separation from the Navy.  On 16 May 2005, you were discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  Subsequently, you received correspondence from Naval Personnel Command dated 2 March 2020, that reads, in part:  “A review of your OMPF and the documents provided did not support a correction to your OMPF or DD Form 214. Your social security number recorded at the time of separation was correct.” 
 
You have requested that the Board change your DD Form 214, Block 3, social security number (SSN).  You assert your record is incorrect and it is preventing you from receiving disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  You contend that you became aware that the SSN you used through elementary, middle, and high school and that is contained in your personnel file, is actually your father’s SSN.  You state you were made aware of the error in November 2004 and that you received a corrected social security card while on active duty.  In support of your application, you attached a copy of a social security card bearing your name and the correctly assigned SSN. 
 
The Board found no error in the records.  The Board noted that your entire record contains documents (both typed and handwritten) with the SSN that is on your DD Form 214.  With respect to your contention that you received a corrected social security card in November 2004, while still on active duty, the Board noted that you continued to sign documents that contained what you claim is your father’s SSN until the date of your discharge in May 2005.  Additional documentation would be required for the Board to alter this decision. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 
 
Sincerely,