LOA-JROTC Nomination

CC, you are arguing with yourself:

It allows THEM more flexibility. It doesn't affect the level of standard of the appointees in that class.
Of course it gives them more flexability. Flexability for what? Better class makeup for them, of course.

In every single instance where a selected individual is on two different nomination lists, the resulting selections from one or both lists will be dependent upon which list from which he was selected. If he is selected from List 'A', Candidate 'X' will also receive an appointment. If he is selected from List 'B', Candidate 'Y' will also receive an appointment. By being on both lists, the original candidate will allow the Academy to select the best candidate, either 'X' or 'Y'. Basic Admissions selections 101. You should have seen the spread sheets before computers. This is why it takes until May. Choosing the best combinations for the absolute best class mix.
 
No argument with that. But the score index between the 1300 that eventually walk in the door, and the 1700 that was originally offered the appointment is too slim to matter. SO; if a person prefers to allow their "MOC" (Senators and Rep) to have the flexibility that have an additional applicant from their state/district to go to the academy, instead of the academy using the additional nomination to choose someone else from a different state, then that is just as noble. And it's not going to lower the quality or standard of the entering class.

Remember, not all MOC's delegate their responsibility of ranking their slate to the academies. Some MOC's consider it THEIR responsibility. (Which it is). And they take that responsibility very seriously. (As they should). That is why my son contacted all 3 MOCs and let them know that he already received an Appointment in October. Therefor, they didn't have to nominate him. Our state only has 1 representative along with the 2 senators. His class year, there were 6 individuals from our state to go to the air force academy. His allowing the MOC to use his nomination helped another Wyoming applicant get into the air force academy. Granted, in the big scheme, where the individual comes from doesn't really matter. But when you know a rep or senator personally ranks their slate, I think it's admirable to give the nomination back to them instead of the academy.
 
No argument with that. But the score index between the 1300 that eventually walk in the door, and the 1700 that was originally offered the appointment is too slim to matter.

Of course it matters. Unless one is attempting to rationalize ‘gaming’ the system rather than allowing the Academy to select the most qualified. Tell me that it doesn’t matter to those who have been entrusted to select the very most qualified. Tell me that it doesn’t matter to Congressional oversight tasked with ensuring compliance with Federal Law. Tell me that it doesn’t matter to some highly qualified candidate who is displaced by a MOC playing a game.

First off, your 1300/1700 comparison is inconsequential. They are all offered appointments and no one except the individuals themselves have any control over which of the 1700 that will be offered appointments. What I think you are attempting to compare is the 1700 who are offered appointments to the, I assume, around 2200 who are fully qualified. At USNA, these totals are 1225/1500/2000. But we will stick with your AF numbers.

Lets look at your son’s appointment. Had he remained on the MOC’s list, he could have been offered an appointment from one of these sources, freeing up another individual on the Presidential list to be offered an appointment. At USNA, those Presidentials who are offered appointments are highly qualified, probably in the top half of all nominations. Or else, had Admissions not chosen to grant an additional Presidential, he would have opened up the national pool for an additional appointment. Again, a highly competitive candidate. However, since he withdrew from the MOC’s slates, he allowed the appointment process to open up to a possibly minimally qualified candidate. Again,I don’t know about AFA, but USNA will go to great lengths to ensure that a marginally qualified candidate is qualified if they are the single acceptable candidate on a slate. Therefore, a minimally qualified 2200 ranked candidate instead of one in the top half of the qualified list. Not saying it had to happen but it could. Many such examples. None of which will increase the overall quality of the class as a whole, many though that will decrease it..

Federal Law goes to great lengths to ensure that the most qualified are selected. The SAs, perhaps some more than others, go to great lengths to ensure compliance. Don’t disparage their efforts by saying that it doesn’t matter. Or disparage the efforts of those who are attempting admission by falsely downplaying the ranking system utilized for selection. They have been doing it a long time. It works. Please allow them to do their job. Only in a state with a district that has more than 10 candidates for a single nomination who are national pool competitive might any ‘gaming’ of the system whatsoever result in a better class composition. However, there are many many examples where it can cause a decrease.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please provide an example where 'gaming' of the system will increase the quality of the Brigade of Midshipmen.
 
Last edited:
I just don't see how this is "gaming" the system. My son's appointment didn't mention ANYTHING about continuing to persue a Moc nom. He thought right away that the right thing to do was to call his MOCs and inform them that he rcvd an appointment to USNA and no longer needed a MOC nom to USNA.

In our area there are many highly qualified candidates, and he opened the door for 3 more to rcv a nom from our state. Who is to say that the 3 from our state that now rcvd noms who otherwise wouldn't have are less qualified than those that did rcv noms from other states. They are actually increasing the candidate pool, rather than one name showing up on 3 nom slates. The available appointment numbers remain constant, but now the pool is larger, making for better flexibilty in picking the most qualified class.
 
Who is to say that the 3 from our state that now rcvd noms who otherwise wouldn't have are less qualified than those that did rcv noms from other states.
The converse also applies. Who is to say that they are more qualified? If not, they are taking appointments from the more qualified applicants. By everyone being on every possible list, both questions become mute? The Academy itself makes the decision. What is good for a particular area is not necessarily good for the Academy and the service as a whole.

In only two instances have I had candidates receive early appointments. In the first, when Admissions became aware of the candidate withdrawing from his MOC nominations, I personally suffered the wrath of the Department. The second, I told in advance. When the appointment came, his dad suspected my instructions and called Admissions himself. He was informed the same. f course if the MOC asks and then refuses to grant a nomination, there is nothing either the candidate or the Admissions Dept can do about it.
 
Last edited:
They aren't taking appointments from any one. The Academy is still making the decision. Just because this person now has a moc nom instead of my son, doesn't mean they will get an appointment, but it does give the Academy a higher number of qualified nominated candidates to choose from.

Also how is the academy making the decision if all 3 MOCs put the same 10 people on their nom slates? now you are only getting 10 for the academy to select from when they could have had 30, which is why MANY MOCS collaborate on their slates to make sure they don't duplicate noms.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, we just see it differently, but ultimately agree that the Academies should be able to pick the strongest class possible. :)
 
Last edited:
Okay, agree to disagree. However, one more post to help you see my point.

You seem to see more nominations as a positive. Last year, there were 6600 MOC noms alone along with 1000 or so from other sources. Of these, only 2000 or so were fully qualified. So, the odds are that all qualified candidates, with a very few exceptions that are not attributable to this discussion, already receive nominations. More nominations therefore is not a goal. What has to be done is ensure that the correct candidates have the proper nomination from which an appointment can be made. The system has been in effect a long time. It is designed to do just this. Any tampering only confuses the issue.

A MOC slate is only good for one quaranteed appointment provided a single individual is 3Qed. All other candidates are only eligible for the national pool. The national pool is extremely competitive and become moreso. What if an individual, who would have been the only qualified candidate on his local Congressman's slate were only on the Senator's slate instead? And not selective for the national pool. He would not receive an appointment. However, had the Senator simply listed the ten best candidates in the state, the most qualifed would receive an appointment. His name would then be removed from his local Congressman's slate and the next most qualified candidate would receive the appointment. If the Senator submits competitively, as Admission suggests, they can ensure the Senator's selection is from the district with the most competitive alternate. A great systme that cannot be improved upon by trying to outguess them.
 
falconchic; there is no gaming of the system. The thing Mongo is believing, and there's nothing we can say to change that, is that the academy is the one who CHOOSES all appointees, and that it is their job to do so. Mongo likes to mention federal statue in the appointment process, but what he doesn't want to accept, is that federal law says it's the MOC's job to select from their state who they want to receive the appointment. (When it comes to the MOC nominations). It's the academy's job to simply state whether an applicant is qualified or not. Unfortunately, a good portion of MOC's don't take their responsibility serious enough to rank their slate. They simply provide a slate of 10 to the academy, and tell them to pick the one they want.

Every single individual who is entitled to, authorized, and/or receives a non-MOC nomination, such as a presidential; happens to also be eligible for a MOC or territorial nomination. After all, all these applicants live some place, so they have representation. But what Mongo doesn't want to see, is that people who receive presidential and similar nominations, aren't the only outstanding applicants. Being the MOC generally only has 1 applicant that is going to actually receive an appointment per year, that there are numerous other highly qualified individuals on that MOC's slate that will not receive an appointment. If your/mine son use the presidential nomination, then that means the MOC can give their primary nomination to ANOTHER well deserving person. Again, and this is the part that Mongo doesn't seem to like, it is not the academy's job to choose which applicant receives an appointment with a MOC's nomination. It is the MOC who is suppose to determine that. Mongo just thinks that the academy should be the one who decides.

Nominations such as presidentials, are benefits afforded military members. The academy chooses which 100 out of the 500+ nominations should receive an appointment via that nomination. Just like the MOC decides which 1, out of the 10 nominations should be listed as the primary and receives the appointment via that nomination. But there are some MOCs that don't want to make that decision, so they give their slate of 10 to the academies and let them choose. Mongo just thinks that this delegation of authority should become the rule, and that the academy should choose all appointment. if that's the case, then why even have separate categories of MOC/Non-MOC nominations. Why not just have 1300 openings and let the academy choose them all. Why not do it like the coast guard and not have nominations? Well, the fact is, that when the academy and mongo say to seek additional nominations once you've received an appointment (Not talking LOA here); then the academy is "Gaming the system" in exactly the same manner that he believes the local MOC is doing it. Except Mongo will rationalize that the academy is capable of giving an appointment to a more deserving individual than the MOC is. That isn't true, and it can't even be proven when the appointment process uses the whole person concept and unless you know who the #1 NON-Selectee is, then there's absolutely no way to even accuse a moc of ensuring an appointment to someone less deserving.

The CORRECT way for this work, is for individuals to apply for any and all nominations they are entitled to. Once an individual has received an appointment utilizing a particular nomination, any and all other nominations that that individual may have, should be released back to their source so THEY can use them on someone else. It is the academy who CHOSE to offer "Early Admissions". It is the academy that gave APPOINTMENTS to individuals in October; knowing that MOC nominations haven't even been interviewed yet. If the academy really wants to save presidential nominations for individuals who weren't good enough to be their MOC's primary nominee and didn't get a nomination, then they should assign appointments via presidential nominations AFTER the MOC's have selected their nominees. And to be honest, that is pretty much what the academy does. Mongo is just hung up on a very, very small amount of appointments. But like any other college, if the academy happens to see an exceptional applicant, who is in the top 1%, and knows they can get accepted to just about any college in the country, and they have everything the academy is looking for (Including a military family background that means they sort of knows what they're getting into), then the academy is going to offer them an early appointment. This is their hope of enticing the individual to accept the appointment, and not search for other colleges/universities.

The academies are not just military institutions to train future officers. They still have many attributes in common with traditional universities. They are competing for the best applicants. (Even among each other's academies). That's one reason the army offers so many early LOA's. In the hope to capture that applicant. Anyway, this is getting way off track. There is no "Gaming of the system" here. If that wants to be argued, then at least admit that the "Gaming" is being done identically by BOTH the academy and the MOC. They BOTH want to have an extra nomination that THEY can choose who it goes to.
 
Also how is the academy making the decision if all 3 MOCs put the same 10 people on their nom slates? now you are only getting 10 for the academy to select from when they could have had 30, which is why MANY MOCS collaborate on their slates to make sure they don't duplicate noms.

think of thess scenarios from (hypothetically) Vermont - 2 senators and 1 rep.:

A. The MOC collude to not duplicate and 30 names are submitted using the competitive method. The Academy numbers them #1-30 according to WPS. The Academy would like to appoint #1-3, as they have the highest scores but it turns out that #2 is the #2 candidate on the Rep list. They can't appoint him but must appoint #1, #3 and #4 (#3 and 4 being highest on the senators list.
The US Rep made his selection and the senators politely decline to nominate anyone on that list "since they already have a nomination".
Now, #2 must compete as a qualified alternate in the National Pool. Unfortunately for him, the National pool is stacked with candidates from NoVa and he ends up on the waiting list while candidates #1, #3 and #4 accept their appointments.

B. Candidates apply to each of their three MOC's and compete against each other on three slates independently. Candidates #1-4 all end up with three nominations and are clearly the top candidates. The academy looks at the slates - picks #1 from the US Rep slate, pickes #2 from the US Senator slate and #3 from the other US Senator slate.
#4 becomes a qualified alternate - he competes as such in the National Pool and is placed on the waiting list.

In scenario A; clearly candidate #2 was more qualified than candidate #4 yet did not receive an appointment.
 
The thing Mongo is believing, and there's nothing we can say to change that, is that the academy is the one who CHOOSES all appointees, and that it is their job to do so. Mongo likes to mention federal statue in the appointment process, but what he doesn't want to accept, is that federal law says it's the MOC's job to select from their state who they want to receive the appointment. (When it comes to the MOC nominations). It's the academy's job to simply state whether an applicant is qualified or not. Unfortunately, a good portion of MOC's don't take their responsibility serious enough to rank their slate. They simply provide a slate of 10 to the academy, and tell them to pick the one they want.
It is the MOC's job to NOMINATE candidates for selection. Way back, Congressmen actually did choose candidates, sometimes politically.
When the academies expanded - the law was changed - now we have a hybrid where the MOC can choose the method.
I am not sure that a MOC, who possibly has never visited an academy is more qualified to make the selection than the admissions board.
 
You can think that, but the moc has the responsibility to rank their slate. Now, if they want to delegate that to the academy and have them choose from a slate of 10, then so be it. That's their option.

You, or I should clarify and say Mongo, has the belief that the individual who received an appointment using a presidential (or similar non-moc) nomination would automatically be the #1 choice on the MOC's list. Then, and ONLY THEN, would Mongo's argument hold any water whatsoever. Because if the individual isn't the #1, then they'd need the presidential slot, that they had, for their appointment. But if the academy basically had your appointment use the MOC, and they reallocated the presidential from BFE Arkansas, then it's possible that you'd be taking the MOC slot away from someone at the MOC who was more qualified than the presidential eligible person who is going to use it so the academy can have back the presidential. Obviously, this is highly unlikely to occur, so the individual using the presidential and no other nomination is a moot point.

The only way any of Mongo's argument hold water, is if the individual with an appointment, using the presidential or other non-MOC nomination, was going to be the #1 slot on the MOC's slate; AND assuming the MOC actually ranked their slate. Because, how the academy ranks individuals doesn't necessarily correlate to the way a MOC might rank their individuals.

The argument is: If an individual receives an appointment utilizing a non-moc nomination, should the individual release their potential MOC nomination back to the MOC, or do they go ahead with that nomination and possibly release the non-moc nomination back to the academy. I don't think it matters at all, either way, for numerous reasons.

1. You aren't lowering the quality of those who eventually do get an appointment.
2. Many MOC's won't provide a nomination to any individual if they already have a nomination.
3. The academy has approximately 500 appointments that they get to fill from the general pool. They aren't going to be dealing with sub-caliber individuals.
4. If an individual is authorized a presidential or other non-moc nomination, and the academy wants them to receive an appointment using that nomination, then chances are that they are an exceptional individual and they should already be at the #1 or #2 slot on the MOC's slate.

Bottom line is: If you, the applicant, received an early appointment, prior to normal MOC interviews and nomination selections, then you are helping your MOC give a nomination to a fellow state citizen. And there's no proof that your fellow citizen/applicant isn't the most qualified. "Why does the most qualified have to have come from a different state"? Also, if the academy doesn't think this is fair, and they think they should be the ones who have final say so in who receives the appointments, and NOT the MOC (By ranking their slate and announcing their "PRIMARY" nominee), then the academy can simply STOP OFFERING EARLY ADMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS. The academy can wait until all MOC nominations are submitted in December/January. Then, the academy can move around the nominations any way they want to. They have this power at their disposal. Just like the army can give an LOA in July/August. So this has nothing to do with the appointee calling their moc and saying: Sir/Ma'am, thank you for scheduling an interview, but I received an appointment using my presidential (Non-MOC) nomination. Please consider appointing another qualified individual from our State/District as your primary nominee. If you have ANY COMPLAINTS with the appointee using the presidential/non-moc nomination for their appointment and not applying for additional MOC nominations, then tell the academies to STOP OFFERING EARLY APPOINTMENTS. Tell them to wait until all nominations have be awarded, then they can use whichever ones they want.

For the OP and others interested in the LOA and nomination issue, the answer is simple. Until you have actually received an appointment, NO NOMINATION is a guarantee to an appointment. Even if you have an LOA. Every nominator has a finite number of nominations that can be used for an appointment. But they have an almost unlimited number of nominations they can give out. So you are taking chances, even with an LOA, that you are guaranteed to get one of the allotted nomination slots. If you are fortunate, it will turn directly into an appointment. So, for you air force individuals, if you have a non-MOC nomination from JrROTC/ROTC, Presidential, or whatever; then when your application is 100% complete, the ONLY way you'll get an LOA, is if the nomination you have; e.g. presidential or JrROTC/ROTC, has had their allotted appointment slots used up already. If the academy hasn't used all the allotted slots, then you won't receive an LOA. You'd receive an appointment. Apparently, according to Mongo, this is similar to the Navy. (They don't offer LOA's without an Application being 100% complete). For you West Point folks, no matter what LOA you have, and no matter what nomination you have or are entitled to, also apply for your MOC nominations. There's too many variables in the Army LOA system to count on an appointment, simply because you have a nomination from a non-moc source. good luck. mike....
 
Last edited:
You can think that, but the moc has the responsibility to rank their slate.
on what do you base this? Your own made up opinion. Not sure about you but I go by the law. US Code.

You, or I should clarify and say Mongo, has the belief that the individual who received an appointment using a presidential (or similar non-moc) nomination would automatically be the #1 choice on the MOC's list
First of all. I and only I post under my name. Don't go posting on here that I speak for anyone else or that anyone else speaks for me.

Second - I am not under that 'belief' at all. I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. It is quite possible that a candidate who receives an early appt through a Presidential nom would not be #1 on the MOC.

The argument is: If an individual receives an appointment utilizing a non-moc nomination, should the individual release their potential MOC nomination back to the MOC, or do they go ahead with that nomination and possibly release the non-moc nomination back to the academy. I don't think it matters at all, either way, for numerous reasons.
When did this become the argument? I thought the argument was about LOA's?

Obviously, if a candidate receives an appointment they do not need to proceed further in the nomination process.
If they do not have an appointment - an LOA is not an appointment - the should actively seek all nominations for which they are eligible. Not the first nomination but ALL nominations. These are instructions from the Academy - I would never profess that an applicant do anything less than follow the full instructions from the Academy.

If candidates do this then the academy will have the most flexibility in appointing the best possible class.
 
Well, as usual, you have turned around pretty much everything I wrote; in your last post. So it is definitely not worth my time to respond and straighten out your mis-perceptions. This is not an uncommon event.

But we do agree that as long as a person is sitting on an LOA, that they should apply for any and all nominations they are eligible for. AND; if a person receives an appointment, traditionally early; then there is no reason in the world that they should have to seek any additional nominations. That's the academy admission's problem.
 
Obviously, if a candidate receives an appointment they do not need to proceed further in the nomination process.

Thank You, Jam, thats exactly what we've been trying to say, glad you agree :thumb:
(yes original question from OP did morph somewhat to a different but related argument)
 
Thank You, Jam, thats exactly what we've been trying to say, glad you agree :thumb:
It's nice you all agree. If only you could convince USNA Admissions of your opinions.

For USNA candidates who receive an Appointment prior to the MOC nomination process, please consult with Admissions prior to cancelling any of the procedures for any further nomination sources.
 
You can think that, but the moc has the responsibility to rank their slate. Now, if they want to delegate that to the academy and have them choose from a slate of 10, then so be it. That's their option.
The SAs are much more qualified to select the appropriate candidates than are the MOCs offices. Most MOCs recognize this. 70%-80% of MOC USNA nominations are via the competitive slate. Even the designated principals most often have a competitive alternate. Each Academy has an entire team that does nothing but evaluate the probability of success of each candidate as either a midshipmen/cadet or/and an officer. The results are called the WPM. Congressmen have nothing to compare with this procedure. I would hope that most MOCs realize this and delegate the awesome responsibility of selecting the correct candidate to those most capable of determining it.

You, or I should clarify and say Mongo, has the belief that the individual who received an appointment using a presidential (or similar non-moc) nomination would automatically be the #1 choice on the MOC's list. Then, and ONLY THEN, would Mongo's argument hold any water whatsoever. Because if the individual isn't the #1, then they'd need the presidential slot, that they had, for their appointment.
Absolutely. The basis of my entire argument. But as you state below, most of these highly qualified early appointment by default would be #1 in their MOC districts. Your quote from below: "4. If an individual is authorized a presidential or other non-moc nomination, and the academy wants them to receive an appointment using that nomination, then chances are that they are an exceptional individual and they should already be at the #1 or #2 slot on the MOC's slate."

But if the academy basically had your appointment use the MOC, and they reallocated the presidential from BFE Arkansas, then it's possible that you'd be taking the MOC slot away from someone at the MOC who was more qualified than the presidential eligible person who is going to use it so the academy can have back the presidential.
This is the matrix that admissions spends months developing and executing to ensure just this selection does not happen. They will chose the alternative that will result in the two best nominees receiving appointments.

Obviously, this is highly unlikely to occur, so the individual using the presidential and no other nomination is a moot point. Why unlikely? In excess of 80% of candidates are eventually selected via the competitive method. You yourself have stated that the early appointments are also likely to be at the top of the MOC list. Therefore it is more likely than not to occur.

The only way any of Mongo's argument hold water, is if the individual with an appointment, using the presidential or other non-MOC nomination, was going to be the #1 slot on the MOC's slate; As we both agree, more likely than not. {b} AND assuming the MOC actually ranked their slate.
No. In the few instances where the MOC selects a principal, he can select anyone he choses and so long as they are 3Qed, they will receive the appointment. Yes, perhaps reducing the quality of the class.
Because, how the academy ranks individuals doesn't necessarily correlate to the way a MOC might rank their individuals. Back to my original statement. The Academy's ranking is more accurate.

The argument is: If an individual receives an appointment utilizing a non-moc nomination, should the individual release their potential MOC nomination back to the MOC, or do they go ahead with that nomination and possibly release the non-moc nomination back to the academy. I don't think it matters at all, either way, for numerous reasons.

1. You aren't lowering the quality of those who eventually do get an appointment.
You have just agreed with my prime example that it in fact does. Other than saying that the top 1700 or top 2200 rankings are all equal and it doesn't matter, which it does, please provide an example of where the quality of the class is enhanced by an early appointment withdrawing from his MOC nomination process. I will save you some time. You cannot.

2. Many MOC's won't provide a nomination to any individual if they already have a nomination.
True. Nothing the Academy can do about this.
3. The academy has approximately 500 appointments that they get to fill from the general pool. They aren't going to be dealing with sub-caliber individuals.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Actually the general pool will raise the quality of the class.
4. If an individual is authorized a presidential or other non-moc nomination, and the academy wants them to receive an appointment using that nomination, then chances are that they are an exceptional individual and they should already be at the #1 or #2 slot on the MOC's slate.
Yes, as already discussed and one of the basics of my argument.

Bottom line is: If you, the applicant, received an early appointment, prior to normal MOC interviews and nomination selections, then you are helping your MOC give a nomination to a fellow state citizen. And there's no proof that your fellow citizen/applicant isn't the most qualified. "Why does the most qualified have to have come from a different state"? Also, if the academy doesn't think this is fair, and they think they should be the ones who have final say so in who receives the appointments, and NOT the MOC (By ranking their slate and announcing their "PRIMARY" nominee), then the academy can simply STOP OFFERING EARLY ADMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS. The academy can wait until all MOC nominations are submitted in December/January. Then, the academy can move around the nominations any way they want to.
Which obviously USNA does to a much greater extent than does AFA assuming your observations are correct. They have this power at their disposal. Just like the army can give an LOA in July/August. So this has nothing to do with the appointee calling their moc and saying: Sir/Ma'am, thank you for scheduling an interview, but I received an appointment using my presidential (Non-MOC) nomination. Please consider appointing another qualified individual from our State/District as your primary nominee. If you have ANY COMPLAINTS with the appointee using the presidential/non-moc nomination for their appointment and not applying for additional MOC nominations, then tell the academies to STOP OFFERING EARLY APPOINTMENTS. Tell them to wait until all nominations have be awarded, then they can use whichever ones they want. Beyond the scope of most candidates. They have to work within the existing system.

For the OP and others interested in the LOA and nomination issue, the answer is simple. Until you have actually received an appointment, NO NOMINATION is a guarantee to an appointment. Even if you have an LOA. Every nominator has a finite number of nominations that can be used for an appointment. But they have an almost unlimited number of nominations they can give out. So you are taking chances, even with an LOA, that you are guaranteed to get one of the allotted nomination slots. If you are fortunate, it will turn directly into an appointment. So, for you air force individuals, if you have a non-MOC nomination from JrROTC/ROTC, Presidential, or whatever; then when your application is 100% complete, the ONLY way you'll get an LOA, is if the nomination you have; e.g. presidential or JrROTC/ROTC, has had their allotted appointment slots used up already. Not true for USNA
If the academy hasn't used all the allotted slots, then you won't receive an LOA. You'd receive an appointment. Apparently, according to Mongo, this is similar to the Navy. Don't twist and misconstrue my statements. The LOA correlation you describe above has nothing to do with LOAs being awarded at USNA. (They don't offer LOA's without an Application being 100% complete). For you West Point folks, no matter what LOA you have, and no matter what nomination you have or are entitled to, also apply for your MOC nominations. There's too many variables in the Army LOA system to count on an appointment, simply because you have a nomination from a non-moc source. good luck. mike....


Again, you yourself have confirmed my primary example of how a candidate, by remaining in the MOC process, will ensure a better class. Rather than continuing to attempt to convolute the issues, please provide a single solitary example of where withdrawing from the procedure will enhance the class.

You are espousing MOC and states rights to the expense of class quality. Your wish is that each and every congressional district maximized their appointments. With a finite class size, to enhance one district, by definition, has to be at the expense of another. The SA's Admissions Dept's 'gaming' the system is in fact ensuring compliance to US Code Title 10 which ensures the most qualified class mix. A MOC's 'gaming' the system is only to circumvent the system which will always be at the expense of another district. It will never never improve the class.
 
Last edited:
The whole purpose of the state/district/MOC nominees is to ensure diversity. (Not the diversity most people think of). The academies are paid for by tax payers. Not state, but federal taxes. As such, Louisiana, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Vermont, Hawaii, etc... all have an equal right to having their citizens eligible and represented at the academies. (The coast guard is much smaller in class size, so such a method would not be very practical; however there have been on and off discussions about nominations for them also). Anyway, our country and educational system throughout the 50 states and territories are not identical, equal, or fair for every student. And while the academies strive to accept in the "Most Qualified"; that is a parameter that is relative. If it wasn't, then in theory, they could have an entire class of 1300 students all from 3-4 states that had the best applicants. That is why there are slots for each district/state. You don't have to like it or agree to it, but that's simply too bad. ALL tax payers pay for the academies, and as such, all will be, or have the same opportunity, to be equally represented.

Presidential, JrROTC/ROTC, and all the other NON-MOC eligible nominees are in a totally separate class of representation. Most of these are in the "Benefit" category. A benefit given for their, or their family's service or sacrifices. Just because these individuals also are eligible for more than 1 nomination, doesn't mean that their state/district should have to fight for their "Rightful Slots".

You keep talking about taking the best, of the best, of the best. Well how come if this presidential, JrROTC/ROTC, non-MOC nominee is supposedly the BEST of the BEST, and you want the academy to be able to take that non-moc nomination from another eligible person and force them to use a MOC nomination; how come the individual you are concerned about doesn't have a MOC nomination? Your only argument can be this individual came from a district whereby they and a couple other applicants, theoretically, were the best applicants in the entire nation. HOWEVER, that MOC can't get both in, so you want to be able to release a non-moc nominee, force their state to use their nomination for him/her, and use that non-mon noimination for the recipient that while "The Best of the Best", was not able to get the MOC nomination. Well, the problem with your fairytale, is that there are proportionately MANY MORE Best of the Best of the Best, that aren't eligible for presidential or other non-MOC related nominations. And many of them won't get accepted, because of the system. EQUAL REPRESENTATION. Which means, the BEST person from Montana who received an Appointment, could in theory be lower in all scores that 5 people who DIDN'T receive an appointment from Virginia.

I understand what you're saying, but the ONLY way your hypothetical scenario can work fairly, is if the academy STOPS ALL early appointments. They can score everyone's applications, but they can't give ANY LOA's or ANY APPOINTMENTS, prior to ALL nominations being received. Then THEY, the academy, can juggle the nominations as necessary to get the BEST from each state and district. (Still has to be allotted from states/districts because all applicants nationally are tax payers, and representation needs to reflect this.) But if the academy stopped giving LOA and early appointments, then your scenario would work. And again, this will not ensure the Best of the Best of the Best, because the #1 appointee in Georgia can have lower scores than the #1 Non-Selectee from Nebraska.

So, I guess I'm saying, if the academy didn't want an individual to use a particular nomination, then they shouldn't have given them an appointment!!! You can't get an appointment without a nomination. It should not be the applicant or the MOC's who have to "PLAY A GAME" in bouncing around nominations. That needs to come from the academy. But until the academy stops offering Early Appointments and LOA's, it's THEIR PROBLEM if a person uses the non-moc nomination to fulfill the requirements for that appointment. Can't see why you don't understand this. It isn't rocket science.

The problem here is; I do in fact understand the system. Not only technically, and legally, but rationally. I understand WHY it's like it is. I've read the law, I've spoken with MOCs, and with the admissions office. But you are looking at it in a way that you WANT it to work. And you're trying to fit the current law into how you want it to operate. The way you WANT it to work, CAN WORK THAT WAY. And there would be nothing illegal about doing it that way. But the academies have to STOP giving out LOA's and Early Appointments. They have the power to do that. Then, they can wait till ALL nominations are in, and they can appoint the best from all districts/states, using MOC nominations. Then, they can select the BEST from each remaining non-MOC category.

Of course, if they do this, they risk losing the BEST of the BEST of the BEST of the BEST (Those that normally get LOA's and Early Appointments); because these individuals almost always are also getting acceptance letters and scholarship offers from some of the best civilian universities in the country. And that's why the LOA/Early Appointments are given out. For the same reason civilian universities give out "Early Admissions". To get the Best of the Best of the Best. Anyway, you need to take your problem up with admissions. Tell them to stop offering appointments early; before moc nominations have been submitted. "If you don't want someone using a particular nomination, WHY'd you give them an appointment USING that nomination"?"????????? DUH!!!!!
 
This is not the way I want it to work. This is the way that the Naval Academy administers the selection process and wants it to work.

The MOCs get their fair share. 550 or so with five each at the Academy at any one time. 75% of all national pool selectees must be soley from MOC alternates only. This ensures diversity to the extent that the law demands.

And remember, Presidential and ROTC nominees are also a part of a congressional district and deserve consideration for nomination by it's elected officials equal to anyone else.

However, you are correct. Flexability vs early decisions. That is the dichotomy with which they juggle all through the cycle.
 
I am glad that we really do agree here. As for the Navy doing a certain way and how they want it; that too is similar to the other services. They would love every non-MOC nominated individual to have additional nominations. They would love to have the flexibility to change out nominations to get in a certain applicant. "Even that applicant happens to be an athlete that they're trying to find a nomination for". I agree, the Navy is doing this; as is the Army and Air Force. And there's nothing wrong with wanting all the applicants to have multiple nominations when possible. But if the Navy or Air Force hands out an early appointment in October to an individual with a presidential nomination, there is no way the Navy or Air Force can piss or moan if the individual doesn't follow through a month or two later with seeking a MOC nomination. The academy is the one who GAVE them the appointment using the presidential nomination. They obviously saw them as one of the best of the best to give an early APPOINTMENT.

Same with the army and LOA's given out in July/August. If an individual apply to West Point has one of these July LOA's, and they finish their application by September, when the boards start meeting, and they have a non-MOC related nomination, e.g. presidential, JrROTC/ROTC, then the army better be willing and ready to offer this individual an appointment USING this Non-MOC nomination. If not, early LOA's will not be worth much, and sooner or later, the new applicants will realize the LOA doesn't mean much, and they'll continue to look at their other educational options.

The academy admissions process has a very difficult job to do in balancing the best qualified applicants, with the rights/quotas of the states for representation, with the non-moc nominations (Benefits), as well as competing with the civilian educational system. Some people; NOT referring to use Mongo; forget certain things.
1) The academies are NOT always an applicant's 1st educational choice.
2) Serving one's country is not always the #1 priority of an applicant
3) The final applicants given appointments, are generally those who are also receiving acceptance from many other civilian schools.
4) The academy has to compete with these schools to get an applicant to commit. Thus the "Early Admissions - Early Appointment/LOA" program.

So while the most fair answer/method would be for there not to be ANY early appointments or LOA's, and let the academy sort out the nominations after the MOC's slates have been submitted, this would be counter productive. Yes, the academy would get the BEST of the BEST of the applicants with a nomination. HOWEVER; the academy would probably lose MOST of the Top-10/15% (150-200) of the REAL BEST OF THE BEST. These are the ones they are giving LOA and Early Appointments to. These individuals are NOT going to wait until April to find out if they have been accepted to the academy. Very few will. I KNOW many of these individuals. When they are sitting there in October with "Early Admissions Acceptance" letters; including approved scholarships; from USC, Tulane, MSU, Cornell, UT, UCLA, MIT, Purdue, etc... They have to make a decision. Cornell and USC are not going to wait until April. And neither will these academy applicants. Not the majority of them.

So while no LOAs and Early appointments would seem the best solution to getting the BEST and most Qualified applicants; they would be defeating the purpose because the VERY BEST won't stick around. And considering that the top 300+ who AREN'T offered an appointment, is almost identically qualified as the 1300 who did eventually get an appointment; it is almost a non-issue on the quality of the eventual class. But the academy definitely wants as much flexibility as they can get. Can't fault them for asking. But they aren't going to revoke an "Early Appointment" they offered in October, using a presidential or other non-MOC nomination, because the individual didn't seek out a MOC nomination 2 months later. Just isn't going to happen.
 
This is not the way I want it to work. This is the way that the Naval Academy administers the selection process and wants it to work.

The MOCs get their fair share. 550 or so with five each at the Academy at any one time. 75% of all national pool selectees must be soley from MOC alternates only. This ensures diversity to the extent that the law demands.

And remember, Presidential and ROTC nominees are also a part of a congressional district and deserve consideration for nomination by it's elected officials equal to anyone else.

However, you are correct. Flexability vs early decisions. That is the dichotomy with which they juggle all through the cycle.

You keep saying this is the way USNA wants it to work, but I repeat, there was NOTHING ANYWHERE in my son's BFE /appointment letter that encouraged him in anyway to continue with the nomination process. I have seen no evidence that USNA wanted him to follow thru on those interviews. Did he apply to all nom sources? Yes. But once he had an appointment in hand, he felt guilty requesting a nom to USNA. He was even told by one MOC rep that he wouldn't even get a nom for USAFA since he already had a USNA appoinment!
 
Back
Top