Good point. It is unreasonable to assume guidance officers are all informed, available and timely, and/or supportive of the military. Many, perhaps most are all of these and more. Many are over-worked with student numbers that are outrageous, ill-informed about the unique application, nomination and appointment processes of the Service Academies, or simply unable to provide substantive information in a timely way. Candidates should be prepared to stay on top of necessary engagements and information.
btw, this is NOT to "diss" nor denigrate guidance counselors. Most are terrific, especially in light of what they are called to do. Rather it is just a word of caution and help to ensure naivete and/or good intentions do not get in the way of getting done that which must be in timely and thorough manner.
And on a perhaps more controversial note, SAs can be tainted for many because of their essential purpose, educating and preparing leaders to defend our nation. It can be well argued that teacher unions and their members are not always or often massively supportive of our military and its mission. Few any longer have had any exposure or investment in military service, nor have their families. So walk carefully, cautiously, wisely in this forest. Friendly fire can be dangerous. For some informative "education" about the potential here, all one need do is see where funding goes from the unions and program objectives of NEA and often their state affiliates. A sad note of necessary caution. Our local just affiliated with AFL-CIO. Listen to Rich Trumka for some intriguing insights. The real point is part of this process can become immersed in the political perspectives of the partners needed to successfully complete this process. Awareness and sensitivity can be valuable commodities.