How am I looking?

Pima said:
the board will not meet until Oct., there is no sense to push it, esp. if you have no nom yet! No nom= no board review.
Click to expand...

Really? Where does the LOA come in then? My MOC has a section on my app reserved for MOC Staffers only that lists options like personal statement, letters of recommendation, letter(s) of assurance, nom's offered, appts offered...

If I recall from a USAFA info meeting, if a LOA is issued, MOCs have an extra 10 slots or something open for noms.
 
Not sure which board is being spoken of, but the review board for your application does start in September. And, you don't need a nomination yet to get your application reviewed by the board. The majority of nominations aren't even considered until november or december. Depending on your state and/or district. But if your application is 100%; other than the nomination; then it will be looked at with the next weekly board after your application has been reviewed for completeness. Again, the boards start in September. The exact date is not known. That is up to the academy.

If I recall from a USAFA info meeting, if a LOA is issued, MOCs have an extra 10 slots or something open for noms
Click to expand...

It's not 10 extra slots. It means that the individual with the LOA doesn't count towards the representative's guaranteed slot. I.e. if a representative has openings at the academy, and has 5 applicants, they are only guaranteed one. The one they nominate at their #1 on their roster of up to 10. Or, some representatives give the list of nominations/applicants to the academy and tell the academy to choose which one is the #1 guaranteed slot. But if one of those applicants has an LOA, the Representative can nominate them as #5 (In this example) and that person gets an appointment. As well as the one they choose as their #1. The rep could even see more from their district without it counting against their slot if some of their applicants had a presidential or another nomination. It's definitely a numbers game.
 
ZoomingFalcon said:
Really? Where does the LOA come in then? My MOC has a section on my app reserved for MOC Staffers only that lists options like personal statement, letters of recommendation, letter(s) of assurance, nom's offered, appts offered...

If I recall from a USAFA info meeting, if a LOA is issued, MOCs have an extra 10 slots or something open for noms.
Click to expand...

The MOC does NOT get extra spots for an LOA. However, the MOC might not be charged for an LOA recipient (opening the potential for the MOC to get 2 appointments off the slate). Notice I said MIGHT NOT be charged. Whether or not the LOA is charged to the MOC is something that the LOA recipient has zero influence on & it truly does not matter to the LOA recipient.

MOC can submit a slate of up to 10 candidates for each opening. The slate is submitted as:
a) UNranked list of 10, often alphabetical (the majority are UNranked slates)
b) One principal nominee and 9 UNranked alternates
c) One principal nominee and 9 Ranked alternates

The SA is required to appoint a principal nominee if that individual meets entrance standards - even if that person is not the most qualified. If the MOC submits an UNranked slate the SA is obligated to select the candidate with the highest WCS, which could be the LOA. If so, the MOC gets one appointment off that slate (the LOA). If the LOA is not the highest WCS then the SA is obligated to appoint the highest WCS in addition to the LOA recipient. Some MOC offices submit ranked slates when they have candidate(s) with an LOA, ranking the LOA's at the very bottom (thereby getting more appointments for their district).

On the SA side, the Board reviews completed files only. As soon as a file is complete (regardless of the status of the other files from the MOC district) it will be reviewed for possible LOA. I am aware of some LOAs already sent from each SA. Some of these early LOAs are to athletes but I know some are to non-athletes. If you do not get an LOA don't fret - your file will still be reviewed by the Board again. Keep updating your file & taking the SAT/ACT. Very few LOAs are sent.

Non-LOA recipients typically do not get an appointment until all files on their MOC slate are complete (so the WCS can be computed - unless the MOC submitted a principal). This is one reason to keep taking exams & updating your file even after you have submitted it. Each extra point on the SAT/ACT will add to your WCS as will each substantive update of your achievements.

There are a lot of variables that I won't go into - the best bet is to submit your complete file to the SA early & update it often. Submit it to the MOC in whatever manner they require - and update it (if they allow updates - if the MOC doesn't allow updates, wait to submit it until you know your Sr. Year leadership positions).

EDIT: Good point Mike - a MOC may end up with more appointments if candidates obtained a nom from another source (apply to all that you qualify). One year our MOC had 7 USAFA appointments, 1 charged to the MOC, 1 charged to a Senator and the balance came from the National Pool with 1 of those having been LOA recipients. That same year they had 5 USNA appointments & numerous USMA appointments. It really is a numbers game and their are numerous variables that may change any given situation.
 
Last edited:
So, If you have a LOA, you may not be charged to any MOC?
 
Last edited:
buff81 said:
So, If you have a LOA, you may not be charged to any MOC?
Click to expand...

You must get a nomination to get an appointment even if you have an LOA (the actual wording on the LOA is that you are "virtually assured" an appointment if you do a) xxxx b) xxx and c) xxxx .... in most cases those are a) get a nom b) pass DoDMRB c) keep up decent in school). Not meeting one of the three can void your LOA. An LOA does not assure a DoDMRB pass nor does it assure a waiver of any medical issue. There are stories that the SA will "find" you a nom if you have an LOA. However, if a candidate receives an LOA and did not get a nom, there is no obligation for the SA to "find" one. If the student did not apply or finish their nom apps, I would venture to say that the SA will not give that individual a Supe nom because that candidate did not do his/her part in trying to secure a nom. Usually the MOCs will give a nom to LOA recipients, but not all MOCs work that way. Some give the Noms to their top ten candidates only (based on the MOC determination) and that may not include an LOA. In highly competitive states a Senator may have more than 10 LOAs and fill their slate with only LOAs leaving some LOAs without a nom. In a recent year our Rep office had 8 LOAs for one SA - so conceivably more than 10 LOAs could land on a Representatives slate as well. If a Senator or Rep fills their slate with LOAs and you have LOA #11 you will not get a nom from that slate. If a candidate did not also apply for their other MOC sources (Rep or Senator) that candidate may end up holding an LOA without a nom. So be sure to apply to all for which you qualify. In competitive states, like CA, many students do not apply for the Senator nom. They assume the state is too big and they'll never get the Senator nom. Not at least applying for all noms for which you qualify is limiting your opportunities though.

An LOA might not be charged to the MOC - but it is not something you have any control over. Many people do not know who, or if, they are charged to their MOC. Many candidates get an appointment and assume they are charged to their MOC but actually are coming out of the National Pool. Your MOC can only have five charged at any given time. That usually means one per year with an occasional two. If you go to the MOC celebration of appointments and see that there is more than one going to the same SA as you, then it is probable that one or more of you is coming from the National Pool and not being charged to the Slate. The point is that it really does not matter. The SA decides who you will be "charged" to which MOC later- based on who actually showed up at BCT. They don't "charge" a MOC source if the appointee does not show up on I-Day so they still shuffle some around after they find out who showed up. For instance - if your MOC had two candidates get an appointment the higher of the two WCS's is charged to the MOC and the other, perhaps, is coming out of the National Pool or Presidential. The higher WCS does not show up on I Day. The SA now moves the other appointee (who arrived on I-Day) from the Presidential or National Pool to the MOC to ensure the MOC slot is filled. Very late appointments can occur when shortly before BCT an appointee tells the SA that they have changed their mind. In that case - if the MOC slate has no other candidates coming (from the National Pool or Presidential) the SA may contact the next highest WCS to offer a late appointment.

It is a very complicated puzzle of who gets charged to what nomination source. By applying for as many noms as you qualify you may get more than one nom to a given SA - if so - the SAs have more flexibility in where they charge you. If you only have one nom, you are either charged to your MOC or coming out of the National Pool (in WCS order). Many people assume that if they have a Presidential and got an early appointment that they are charged to the Presidential but if they were given a MOC nom as well the SA may have elected to charge that student to the MOC and bring in another Presidential (they can only have 100 Presidential so while if you qualify you automatically get a Pres nom, you are by no means assured an appointment with that nom).

Does that make more sense? There are so many different scenarios that I couldn't relay them all without writing a book!
 
As I mentioned earlier, the representative gets 10 nominations. Only the 1st is guaranteed. (Assuming they qualify and the Representative has an open slot at the academy). However, they are allowed to nominate up to 10. The other 9 will basically go into the pool. And any of those, if selected for an appointment in the general pool, do not count against the representative's maximum allotment. Now, throw in an individual with an LOA. Almost guaranteed, either the representative or one of the 2 senators for your state will nominate you on their list of 10. Most times, you will be #10. Why? Because with an LOA, it doesn't matter if you are #1 or #10, you receive the nomination. (Assuming all other areas stay qualified). So, the rep is not going to waste their #1 slot, which they get a guarantee, on you. Not when YOU have a guarantee as long as they nominate you some place. Any place.

Is it possible that you could have an LOA and not get a nomination? Yes. Is it common? No. Reps/Senators may only be allowed "X" amount of candidates at the academy that count towards their quota, but they WANT as many applicants from their state as possible. So with an LOA a guarantee, they will nominate you. Assuming you apply. Plus, they know that there is no way in the world that the other 9 on the rep's list of 10 are going to get a nomination in the general pool. Isn't going to happen. So, by putting an LOA at #10 and a #1 for someone else, the rep get's 2 for the price of 1. However, some times reps and senators don't talk to each other. And if a state has hundreds of applicants, it's possible for someone with an LOA to slip through the cracks and not be nominated. But it's very rare. The academy sends a letter to your Representative and Senators saying you have an LOA. The only real problem is if the representative submits an unranked list in which there is an LOA applicant. The LOA applicant will definitely get the appointment; however; the academy will probably make that person the #1 slot, which WILL COUNT towards the Rep's quota. Any rep who submits an unranked list of 10; knowing that they have an LOA applicant on that list; is a 100% total freakin moron. Get the balls to rank a #1, and your district gets 2 cadets. Don't rank a #1, and you might only have 1 from your district. (The LOA)

It's rather quite simple. An LOA is an applicant who a rep/senator can nominate and not have it affect the rep's #1 slot. Like I said, they can be #10 on the list and they STILL get the appointment. It's a no lose situation for the MOCs and for the applicant.
 
I will add a little more confusion.....

The only real problem is if the representative submits an unranked list in which there is an LOA applicant. The LOA applicant will definitely get the appointment; however; the academy will probably make that person the #1 slot, which WILL COUNT towards the Rep's quota. Any rep who submits an unranked list of 10; knowing that they have an LOA applicant on that list; is a 100% total freakin moron. Get the balls to rank a #1, and your district gets 2 cadets. Don't rank a #1, and you might only have 1 from your district. (The LOA)
Click to expand...

If a candidate receives an LOA in October and the MOC slate isn't due until January it is entirely conceivable that a more highly qualified candidate could surface in that time period. In that case, the candidate with the LOA will go into the "pool".
The academy is required to pick the top candidate, not the one with the LOA.

Many MOC's use one method and stick with it from year to year. My Congressman's policy is to submit a Competitive slate of candidates each year. He doesn't change it if he gets a candidate with an LOA. This way each candidate enters on Merit and he can't be accused of political favors that sometimes accompany a slate with a Principle nominee.
Another thing to keep in mind is a candidate with an LOA may have multiple nominations - i.e. another MOC, Presidential JROTC etc.
By submitting a competitive slate this allow the academy to select the "best" class.
 
Why would a representative allow a constituent with an LOA to go into the "Pool"? In order to do that, the representative would have had to put 10 other applicants ahead of them. And a representative not making one of their 10 slots; 30 if they coordinate with the senators; for an applicant holding an LOA should be castrated. If in the months between a particular candidate receiving an LOA and the representative's slate being submitted; if a "More Qualified" individual comes along; then make that individual your #1. The one with the LOA only has to be nominated. They don't have to be #1. They can be #2-#10. That's all that's required to get them the appointment. To have an LOA go into the general pool means the rep or senator didn't place that person anywhere on their slates of 10. That's a crappy rep or senator.
 
Christcorp said:
Why would a representative allow a constituent with an LOA to go into the "Pool"? In order to do that, the representative would have had to put 10 other applicants ahead of them. And a representative not making one of their 10 slots; 30 if they coordinate with the senators; for an applicant holding an LOA should be castrated. If in the months between a particular candidate receiving an LOA and the representative's slate being submitted; if a "More Qualified" individual comes along; then make that individual your #1. The one with the LOA only has to be nominated. They don't have to be #1. They can be #2-#10. That's all that's required to get them the appointment. To have an LOA go into the general pool means the rep or senator didn't place that person anywhere on their slates of 10. That's a crappy rep or senator.
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to it than that. And the pool is comprised of those other 9 on the slate that didn't get the one charged slot - they do have a nom - so that LOA that is in the pool will get an appointment. There are situations when a MOC will not nominate an LOA. I have seen it happen on multiple occasions - this is being discussed over on the Navy forum right now - http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=8093 (hope that link works). There are reasons, many extremely valid reasons, for a MOC to do this. There are also some MOCs that simply, out of principal, won't give an LOA a nom. But there are very few of those. It is those few that I think you are really addressing Mike, not the ones with valid reason.
 
There is a lot more to it than that. And the pool is comprised of those other 9 on the slate that didn't get the one charged slot - they do have a nom - so that LOA that is in the pool will get an appointment.
Click to expand...

I believe you meant the LOA that is on that SLATE will get an appointment. Yes, I agree 100%. That is exactly what I said.

However; unless a representative is sitting there with a lot of walk on water applicants, there are very few valid reasons for them not to give a nomination to someone with an LOA. Especially if they are wimp enough to send an unranked slate to the academy to let them do their dirty work. They're basically saying that they TRUST the academy to rank their constituents and determine a #1; HOWEVER, they DON'T trust the academy enough that when they give someone an LOA, that's their way of saying: "Look dude/dudette; we want this person and it won't count against you. Nominate them".

I doubt that there are "Many Extremely Valid Reasons" for not nominating someone in your district/state that the academy has given an LOA to. If we take the WORST CASE SCENARIO; the state of Wyoming; they only has 1 Representative. And of course their 2 senators. That's a total of 30 nominations for an entire state. Personally, I don't think Wyoming has ever had 30 qualified applicants to one service academy in a single year. But proportionately, that 1 representative is about equal to the population of most states. The average district for a representative, is approximately 600,000-650,000 residents. The population of the entire state of Wyoming is approximately 550,000 people.

So, if a representative from a more populated district has more than 10 qualified kick butt applicants; and they see fit to NOT nominate someone with an LOA; or at least work that out with the senators for them to nominate them; that is pretty "Chicken-$h*t". Other than the LOA applicant doing something pretty stupid in the 1st half of their senior year, I can not imagine one of the "Many Extremely Valid Reasons".

I understand that it can be a pissing contest between the academy and the states when it comes to nominations. The academy wants the states to use theirs so they can reserve the presidentials and other academy available nominations for those that they really want, but can't get a nomination. And the states want the academy to use presidentials and their other available nominations on their state's applicants so they don't count against their numbers, and they have more available cadets attending the academy. I know the game. But an LOA is a no lose situation. If a representative only has 1 available slot remaining at the academy, and it's going to their #1 ranked slot, then they can still nominate the LOA applicant to #10 and they both get in. By either not nominating the LOA applicant; or not ranking the slate and allowing the academy to choose; the rep is only guaranteed 1 of their constituents attending that academy. They might get both, but they are only guaranteed the 1. I've spoken to both senators and rep for our state on this matter, and they understand the numbers. There are obviously many out there that don't understand.
 
lol,

Maybe I should move to Wyoming. Sounds like a pretty good deal there.

Later,

Brian
 
Not a "Good Deal" per se; just a lot of common sense. 1 Representative and 2 senators, and we have 12 cadets in last year's class of 2012. (Don't know about this year). And yes, the Rep/Senators know the rules. You figure out all the possible combinations. I will say that 4 of the 12 are easy to figure out. 1 Presidential, 1 from the Prep-School, 2 recruited athletes. That still leaves 8 more in the class. But MOC's who don't take care of their residents; and if especially one has an LOA; should be thrown out of office for not doing their job.
 
Especially if they are wimp enough to send an unranked slate to the academy to let them do their dirty work. They're basically saying that they TRUST the academy to rank their constituents and determine a #1; HOWEVER, they DON'T trust the academy enough that when they give someone an LOA, that's their way of saying: "Look dude/dudette; we want this person and it won't count against you. Nominate them".
Click to expand...
Pretty harsh words against the Admissions departments at our Service Academies. They, unlike each MOC, are required by law to appoint by MERIT.
I think you are one who is one record as wanting the "best of the best" to receive appointments, young men and women who are intelligent, capable, moral and qualified in every aspect.
Yet, you think a MOC who probably has no contact with any SA save for reviewing applications and/or nominees each year is more capable at choosing the "best" candidate?
A little history here, years ago candidates did need to be chosen by their MOC's. MOC's were notorious for choosing candidates who were their campaign manager's nephew, if you get my drift. Some refused to nominate candidates of a certain color.

MOC's today would serve their constituents well if they would choose to submit an unranked slate and allowed the Academies to choose the best, based on merit.
Submitting a competitive slate that contains a candidate with an LOA does not harm that candidate. He/she gets in. The rest compete in the "pool" for open slots. If they are qualified enough, they too will receive appointments.

Furthermore, some MOC's have a long standing policy in place that they will submit a competitive slate. To change the rules based on applications may be contrued by constituents and unfair and reek of cronyism.

The most common reason I have seen for a MOC to NOT nominate a candidate is when they have a policy to only offer ONE nomination per candidate and the candidate applies for a nomination to the academy that did not give an LOA, or received more than one LOA.
Although I have seen two cases where recruited athletes did NOT get a nomination with an LOA. The two candidates did get appointments.
 
Pretty harsh words against the Admissions departments at our Service Academies.
Click to expand...
JAM; why do we always wind up going through the same thing. Read what I wrote and not what you want it to say. I am Dogging the reps/senators. NOT the academy.

Yet, you think a MOC who probably has no contact with any SA save for reviewing applications and/or nominees each year is more capable at choosing the "best" candidate?
Click to expand...
From their state? Yes!!! It is the MOC's JOB to choose who they believe are the best. If they're just going to let the academy do the choosing, then why even have a MOC review/nomination process?

You are definitely allowed to have your opinion. But please, don't preach. I don't need it. And I definitely don't want it. I know what a Rep/Senator's responsibility is to their constituents. If the academy offers an LOA, that's a pretty good sign that the academy believes the individual in question has what it takes to be a cadet and officer. If the MOC wants to push the responsibility of selecting the #1 onto the academy, that's their business. I think they are being irresponsible in their duties, but many politicians are anyway. So that's nothing new.

But this thread is about an individual with an LOA. And if the academy says they want someone, and gave them the LOA, then the MOC should probably respect that enough to give the individual a nomination. If they don't, they are butt heads. It's really that simple. And if an individual applied to more than one academy, and they only want to nominate them to 1 academy, then nominate them to the one with the LOA. It's not taking from their allocation.

You gave a lot of reasons why a MOC would pawn off their responsibilities to the academy. I know many who do this. And they will "Rationalize" why. It's wrong. It's that simple. It is the MOC's responsibility to nominate. If they don't want that responsibility, then don't run for office. Next thing will be that they don't want the responsibility of other duties.
 
Look; this is/was a "How do I look" thread. I think that is where it needs to go back to. A few comments were made in relationship to an LOA. And of course, the thread will take off an evolve. For right now, what matters is that the board starts reviewing applications in the next few days/weeks. Until someone gets an LOA, such information really isn't that important. It's been discussed hundreds of times. If anyone here is interested in LOA's, do a search on the forum. And if anyone cares how their representative or senator handles nominations, then you need to ask them directly. It doesn't matter what I say and it doesn't matter what Just_A_Mom says. Each representative and senator is different. Some are more involved with their citizens than others. So, unless someone on this forum is from your state and district, their opinion doesn't matter on what YOUR rep or senator does.

Now; for more important things. "FALCONS RULE"!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top