NALOA

Hello,

I have few questions:

1. My son DODMERB homepage indicates that he going to get the LOA (Sub-agency: NALOA) . From the time the DODMERB displayed these magic words, how soon he will receive the "real" letter ?

2. Since he already completed his nomination application for State Senators and Congressman in July, Any chance that he will get the nomination result soon because he get the LOA from USNA ?

3.What was the percentage of LOA receiver but no appointment in the past?

Thank you

summer1942 said:

Hello,

I have few questions:

1. My son DODMERB homepage indicates that he going to get the LOA (Sub-agency: NALOA) . From the time the DODMERB displayed these magic words, how soon he will receive the "real" letter ?

2. Since he already completed his nomination application for State Senators and Congressman in July, Any chance that he will get the nomination result soon because he get the LOA from USNA ?

3.What was the percentage of LOA receiver but no appointment in the past?

Thank you

Click to expand...

1. No idea. Remember, this is the military. Seriously.

2. Probably not. First of all, not all MOCs will give noms to LOA candidates. Many do, but some don't if that candidate isn't, in their view, one of the top 10. I think you're going to have to wait for the process to work its way through, which means not knowing until at least Dec. and more likely, Jan. It all depends on the MOC, though. Some do finish earlier.

3. No idea. Last year, 2/4 who got LOAs didn't get noms. However, I would NOT suggest that's the national percentage as I operate in a very competitive geographic area. As a general rule -- there are obviously exceptions -- MOCs like to give noms to LOA recipients.

usna1985 said:

3. No idea. Last year, 2/4 who got LOAs didn't get noms. However, I would NOT suggest that's the national percentage as I operate in a very competitive geographic area.

Click to expand...

Just curious if your area uses principle noms?

Even if the MOC did not believe the LOA holder was in the "top ten", it would appear that it's to their disadvantage to include non-LOA's on their slate of ten to the exclusion of the LOA holders.

Even factoring in the wait list, it would seem unlikely that all 9 without noms would get appts via waitlist, where LOA holders included at the bottom of the slate likely would.

If I understand it correctly, only one Non-LOA will likely get an appointment anyway. But if the LOA holders were included, albeit at the bottom of the slate the MOC is not charged for those as I understand the process.

For MOC's using ranked or unranked slates I just don't see the advantage to not including LOA's unless you had more than 9 LOA holders.

Of course, if the candidate blew the MOC interview, etc, all bets are off.

Am I missing something??? (just a parent, so quite likely I did!)

I'm agreeing with your thinking, Hawk. Although some areas are just set on the "we ALWAYS use the competitive method". WI is one of those areas - in past experience, everyone used competitive. Usually you see at most 1 LOA in a district, and odds are they're the best candidate, and will get the nom and appointment for that district so it's not a huge issue. I did see last year for the first time a region that had 4 LOA's, which is highly unusual here (this was for West Point). The MOC/staff figured out exactly what you said and designated a principal nom for the first time in ages exactly for that reason - to get yet a 5th person from his district in without being charged for any more.

I think sometimes though it's just a matter of bureaucracy/policy that prevents them from changing it - a fear of someone coming back and saying "last year you did this and this year that - it's not FAIR" and it having political repercussions.

I don't understand about the this part:

"If I understand it correctly, only one Non-LOA will likely get an appointment anyway. But if the LOA holders were included, albeit at the bottom of the slate the MOC is not charged for those as I understand the process.

Click to expand...

.

Can someone help me to understand this process.

Thanks

marciemi said:

The MOC/staff figured out exactly what you said and designated a principal nom for the first time in ages exactly for that reason - to get yet a 5th person from his district in without being charged for any more.

Click to expand...

This would imply that only with principle noms would an LOA holder be potentially granted an appointment by being on the slate, but not the top pick.

IE: it's different for Principle process vs competitive, which was not my impression.

But I guess I could see the case where the LOA holder could be picked by the academy as the single charged appointment on an unranked "competitive" slate to the exclusion of the MOC's first choice.

Based on the explanation of the processes I've seen, this would only happen if the LOA holder was also the highest scored candidate by the academy. IE: the academy's first choice anyway.

OK, this is getting into arcane details.... about this time someone will weigh in and say candidates do not control this process, apply to all nomination sources, etc.

But there are widely different perceptions around the impact of LOA's on Noms. When a candidate does receive an LOA, they have a legit desire to know what that means, how it effects the nomination process. So I don't fault candidates (and parents) for wanting to know more.

hawk said:

Even if the MOC did not believe the LOA holder was in the "top ten", it would appear that it's to their disadvantage to include non-LOA's on their slate of ten to the exclusion of the LOA holders.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree!

It is INSANE for a MOC not to nominate an LOA-holder because they can *still* have a principle nominee (not one of the LOA-holders) who will definitely get in ... PLUS all LOA-holders ... PLUS any extra nominees the academy may want to pick-up from their list after all the required appointments are sent out.

It makes the MOC look very good to have so many of their 10 get appointments. Theoretically, all 10 nominees for one slot could get appointments - the details of who is charged for the nominations is worked out by the academy.

But, as far as the MOC is concerned, that is all very academic. When their nominees get in, for whatever reason, they are in.

I'm guessing that LOA-holders who do not get a nomination have probably done/said something (perhaps at an MOC interview) that was so cataclysmically stupid, that it prevented them from receiving a nomination.

I've said this before ...

WARNING: Whenever communicating with the MOC Service Academy Coordinator (via written correspondence or telephone), never lose sight of the fact that they probably have the biggest input (if not the sole input) as to who gets a nomination from that office. Do not disrespect or dismiss them as a mere "secretary." When you communicate with them, pretend you are communicating with the MOC themselves. Every time you are communicating with them, you are "interviewing" for a nomination.

Summer1942,
You indicated that your son saw his LOA stuts listed on his DODMERB homepage. i thought the DODMERB homepage only listed your status as medically qualified or not. Help me to understand

You indicated that your son saw his LOA stuts listed on his DODMERB homepage. i thought the DODMERB homepage only listed your status as medically qualified or not. Help me to understand

Click to expand...

Yes, On 9/24 the DODMERB webpage displayed on my son status as sub-agency: NALOA. It means that my son going to receive the LOA. Matter of fact, he received the official letter yesterday, the letter dated 9/27.