Still in the game

I know someone whose DS was appointment to USNA in 2012, but deferred to the next year for admittance. I wonder if this will be how they handle this situation.
 
WithYou2018 said:
The problem for USNA is that US Code Title X mandates that in event of too few available slots, congressional positions must be filled first. There are no included exceptions.

So, what we have is an admissions office/board that has created it own problem by ignoring the mandate of Principal Nominations as codified in law. They may have their reasons, but to attempt to deflect their problem by making such statements is insulting.

Whether or not any individual congressman or Congress as a whole has the fortitude to defend their Principal Nominees and and their authority under law, well, that is another matter. I know at least one in another state who has these past weeks done so successfully. Mine, my DS's? We will see.

What I see developing is another Washington Post headline and bashing of the Academy by people who would love to see it weakened. Well, I don't and I am livid that professors, staff members, and naval officers sitting on the board would place the academy and candidates in this untenable position.

Now, the final question is what, if, anything the Superintendent will do. It's his command, his responsibility.
Click to expand...

Yes, WithYou2018, the response sounded like gobbledegook to me. I was just trying to be polite :wink:

I really hope your MOC digs in and insists on behalf of your DS. Otherwise the law has become meaningless.

If the MOC's have the privilege of selecting a principal nominee, then they do, and the academies must abide by the selection. We all want to play by the rules, it's just nice to know what they are in advance. :unhappy:

Praying this is resolved for you & others in same boat in the best possible way, according to the law.
 
USAFA83GradWife said:
I know someone whose DS was appointment to USNA in 2012, but deferred to the next year for admittance. I wonder if this will be how they handle this situation.
Click to expand...

That would be one solution for any candidates displaced in order to comply with Title X's mandate. Hopefully, they can fix this with minimal impact upon all candidates, regardless of nominating source.

What a mess.
 
WithYou2018 said:
The problem for USNA is that US Code Title X mandates that in event of too few available slots, congressional positions must be filled first. There are no included exceptions.

So, what we have is an admissions office/board that has created it own problem by ignoring the mandate of Principal Nominations as codified in law. They may have their reasons, but to attempt to deflect their problem by making such statements is insulting.

Whether or not any individual congressman or Congress as a whole has the fortitude to defend their Principal Nominees and and their authority under law, well, that is another matter. I know at least one in another state who has these past weeks done so successfully. Mine, my DS's? We will see.

What I see developing is another Washington Post headline and bashing of the Academy by people who would love to see it weakened. Well, I don't and I am livid that professors, staff members, and naval officers sitting on the board would place the academy and candidates in this untenable position.

Now, the final question is what, if, anything the Superintendent will do. It's his command, his responsibility.
Click to expand...

So, I take it that you received the same reply from Admissions that HappyinKC did? How disappointing. And yes, insulting. Sorry that your DS is having to deal with this.
 
WithYou2018 said:
That would be one solution for any candidates displaced in order to comply with Title X's mandate. Hopefully, they can fix this with minimal impact upon all candidates, regardless of nominating source.

What a mess.
Click to expand...

Withyou2018, or HappyinKC,

Would you be willing to give us some insight on how you handled this situation? If this happens again it would be nice to have some understanding on how, exactly, to approach a debacle such as this.
 
Last edited:
How disappointing for those with principals to hear this from USNA. Deeply saddened by this turn of events. Of course you all know the old adage about the squeaky wheel, if I were in your shoes I'd be one heck of a squeaky wheel!!!!
 
As I read title x there are some limitations further in the title to limit congressional member to 4 vs. 5 as deemed.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
d22 said:
Withyou2018, or HappyinKC,

Would you be willing to give us some insight on how you handled this situation? If this happens again it would be nice to have some understanding on how, exactly, to approach a debacle such as this.
Click to expand...

Yes, I will share any useful information I learn. To start, we are working through our MOC's academy rep. I want to give her first chance to solve the problem before leap frogging up the chain, so to speak. I think that is just a matter of simple professional courtesy.

At this starting point, what I believe happened was admissions designed into their nomination projections a level of flexibility that enables them to commit to RA's and LOA's, then after I Day, to use among other nomination sources MOC slots to plug the RA's and LOA's into. It may work out for them in many prior years, but not this one. They underestimated the number of Principal Nominations, and it seems too the loss of class size. So now, they are faced with Principal Noms and no slots to appoint them. Who knows yet if I am right. At least it seems plausible.

As I mentioned earlier, their error now is to relegate the Principal Noms to the waitlist, an action that is contrary to law. They may have thought that solution as reasonable...they were wrong. Under law, that was the last solution available.

So now what? I feel for all candidates. Principle Noms, RA's, LOA's, because now if they follow the law and don't anticipate sufficient declined appointments to immediately appoint the Principal Noms from the waitlist, the lawful solutions available include: rescind prior offers of appointments to RA's or LOA's (when more than one appointee comes from a single district or from a district that has a Principal Nominee other than the RA or LOA); offer non-Principal Noms the option of "deferred appointments" as an earlier post informed; or suck up a slightly oversized class (what 5 to 20 plebes?). I of course prefer the honorable thing, the latter option. And...of course, alter their practices for next year to avoid a repeat.

Just my two cents...
 
Hello Islanders!!! I'm so glad to read today's posts after being gone all day and see NO notices of TWE's! Encouraging. I'm also glad to pull into my driveway and spy our mailbox and laugh at it. IT NO LONGER HAS POWER OVER MY EMOTIONS!!!

I/we are rooting for each of you. DS has responded beautifully. He is ready to embrace college. He may reapply, but will honor my request to not make any major decisions for at least two weeks. We all need a breather.

Here's hoping for some reports of BFE's so we can celebrate some.
Good luck this week.

And by the way, I sure appreciate the notes of encouragement. Were fine over here!

Tennessee Dad
 
Last edited:
Sorry navygenerarionskip, TWE has arrived in Texas. So they are going out looks like.

Fortunately, DS was accepted to USAFA.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
NavyGenerationSkip said:
Hello Islanders!!! I'm so glad to read today's posts after being gone all day and see NO notices of TWE's! Encouraging. I'm also glad to pull into my driveway and spy our mailbox and laugh at it. IT NO LONGER HAS POWER OVER MY EMOTIONS!!!

I/we are rooting for each of you. DS has responded beautifully. He is ready to embrace college. He may reapply, but will honor my request to not make any major decisions for at least two weeks. We all need a breather.

Here's hoping for some reports of BFE's so we can celebrate some.
Good luck this week.

And by the way, I sure appreciate the notes of encouragement. Were fine over here!

Tennessee Dad
Click to expand...


Sorry about the TWE Tennessee Dad. We are also from Tennessee and was hoping your DS got the appointment that my DS declined since it was from Corker's slate.

Glad he is embracing other plans.

Best to you and your DS.




Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Sorry Ordie! Bracing for impact as we head home from 5 days always here.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
I just red through all these posts regarding the Principal nomination mess. I feel awful for all involved. IMHO admissions should slot Principals first, assuming 3Q then RAs and LOAs. Why slate an RA before a Principal, unless the RA has a Principal nom. It all goes back to my on going, long lasting rant about the importance of athletics in this country. We as a country put too much emphasis on athletics not enough on academics. I am not saying some athletes don't deserve the appointment, but I am under no illusion that all the RAs at the Academy had the outstanding academic credentials that many TWE recipients had. Not just at the Academy, but all the top competitive schools in the country. It's sad really.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
WithYou2018 said:
Yes, I will share any useful information I learn. To start, we are working through our MOC's academy rep. I want to give her first chance to solve the problem before leap frogging up the chain, so to speak. I think that is just a matter of simple professional courtesy.

At this starting point, what I believe happened was admissions designed into their nomination projections a level of flexibility that enables them to commit to RA's and LOA's, then after I Day, to use among other nomination sources MOC slots to plug the RA's and LOA's into. It may work out for them in many prior years, but not this one. They underestimated the number of Principal Nominations, and it seems too the loss of class size. So now, they are faced with Principal Noms and no slots to appoint them. Who knows yet if I am right. At least it seems plausible.

As I mentioned earlier, their error now is to relegate the Principal Noms to the waitlist, an action that is contrary to law. They may have thought that solution as reasonable...they were wrong. Under law, that was the last solution available.

So now what? I feel for all candidates. Principle Noms, RA's, LOA's, because now if they follow the law and don't anticipate sufficient declined appointments to immediately appoint the Principal Noms from the waitlist, the lawful solutions available include: rescind prior offers of appointments to RA's or LOA's (when more than one appointee comes from a single district or from a district that has a Principal Nominee other than the RA or LOA); offer non-Principal Noms the option of "deferred appointments" as an earlier post informed; or suck up a slightly oversized class (what 5 to 20 plebes?). I of course prefer the honorable thing, the latter option. And...of course, alter their practices for next year to avoid a repeat.

Just my two cents...
Click to expand...

Thank you for your .02. I hope your DS, and others, will be receiving good news soon, and hopefully they won't need to rescind any prior offers.

What a mess!
 
With everything that is going on at USNA admissions right now, what sort of position are those of us still waiting in?
 
And I have to wonder how this mess affected those with Presidential Noms. I believe they can take up to 100, but if they were running short on space, I imagine the Presidentials were some of the first to go. Also, didn't I read somewhere that by law they also must take some number (like 75 to 100) from the NWL?
 
Prepswimmom said:
I just red through all these posts regarding the Principal nomination mess. I feel awful for all involved. IMHO admissions should slot Principals first, assuming 3Q then RAs and LOAs. Why slate an RA before a Principal, unless the RA has a Principal nom. It all goes back to my on going, long lasting rant about the importance of athletics in this country. We as a country put too much emphasis on athletics not enough on academics. I am not saying some athletes don't deserve the appointment, but I am under no illusion that all the RAs at the Academy had the outstanding academic credentials that many TWE recipients had. Not just at the Academy, but all the top competitive schools in the country. It's sad really.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
Click to expand...

Someone correct me if I'm off base here, but the reality of college (and pro) athletics is all about $$$. And who's to blame...we are, John Q. Public. We support the programs by purchasing tickets, food at concessions, your favorite athlete's jersey, video games, etc.

A coaches job is to win, and in order to do so he/she must recruit the best players. That being said a coach will not waste scholarship money on a player whom he feels will flunk out, either.

Until we stop supporting our favorite sport teams (Go Padres and Chargers,) then college and pro sports is here to stay.
 
Last edited:
Coupon for Tuxedo Den here, still on the island for another night.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
US Code Title 10 › Subtitle B › Part III › Chapter 403 › § 4342

I called the USNA Admissions and the MOC rep. Admissions stated the same thing as a prior post stated. I asked if there were multiple primaries given for multiple slots and she stated "No". MOC sends a list with one primary but the board decided who to take and put my DS on the waitlist. She also stated DS should be happy to be on a waitlist and that the waitlist is based on merit. Of course I keep my frustration in check. I then call the MOC rep. She tells me that DS was the primary/principle and that she found out last week that he was waitlisted. So I ask was there more then one primary. She says no only my DS was primary. So I tell her what I have found out on this board. She chuckles and says we should be happy that DS is on a waitlist but she will find out what happened. I will personally go to their office tomorrow show them the Law and get to the bottom of this.

I believe what was posted earlier could have happened. They sent out too many LOA's not thinking that the class size would be lessened due to cuts made by POTUS. So they (the admissions board) felt they had to honor the LOA's and as long they were nominated(didn't matter if principle or not) they got the slot. But from my understanding of LOA's they are not guarantees and are based on nominations and qualifying in the 3 conditions. This also seemed to apply to people who applied through the early application program. But according to admissions, admissions is rolling and it doesn't matter when you put in your application as long it was in by the deadline.

I don't believe RA's were a factor since most of them go to NAPS. NAPS is the Academies way of red shirting a player who may need stronger academics or to get better physically, its usually the latter.

Is it fair to be happy with being on the waitlist? No. What happened to the honor code in this. Candidates followed the instructions given to them. All candidates suppose to understand how the appointments are made. Yet USNA didn't follow the rules they set nor did they follow the law as set by Congress. So what should happen? Easy, appoint the principle/primary nominees as set by the Law. If it is over the amount go through the applications again and whomever doesn't cut it then send them to NAPS. Or do the most honorable thing and admit them. It is not the principle/primary candidates fault for USNA's mistakes so don't punish them by putting them on waitlist that they should be happy to even be on. How degrading is that?

This is what I got from US Code Title 10,Subtitle B,Part III,Chapter 403, § 4342:

Each Senator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress, including the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, is entitled to nominate 10 persons for each vacancy that is available to him under this section. Nominees may be submitted without ranking or with a principal candidate and 9 ranked or unranked alternates. Qualified nominees not selected for appointment under this subsection shall be considered qualified alternates for the purposes of selection under other provisions of this chapter.

And further down it said this:

(g) The Secretary of the Army may limit the number of cadets authorized to be appointed under this section to the number that can be adequately accommodated at the Academy, as determined by the Secretary after consulting with the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, subject to the following:
(1) Cadets chargeable to each nominating authority named in subsection (a)(3) or (4) may not be limited to less than four.

No where in the section did it say that the board can go against the MOC's ranked list. No where in the whole law says that the board can go against the MOC's list.
 
Straight facts...

Here is a link to the congressional guide to service academy nominations. Below the link to the PDF format document is text I have extracted specific to earlier discussions regarding the type of nominations and the Naval Academy's US Code Title X mandate required actions. Footnoting with references are included in the document.

Good Reading.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33213.pdf

“Nominees may be submitted in three categories: without ranking, with a principal candidate and nine ranked alternates, or with a principal candidate and nine unranked alternates. When the Member specifies a principal candidate, that individual will be appointed to a DOD academy as long as he or she meets all other admission criteria. If the principal candidate is disqualified, the service academies will appoint the first fully qualified, ranked alternate, if specified by the Member. In circumstances where Members do not specify a principal candidate or ranked alternates, one individual from among the Member’s nominees who is found to be fully qualified will be appointed by the academies to serve as a cadet.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top