Re No. 2 above, I have read the law and while it addresses the three possible ways in which the MOC can submit his or her slate of candidates (Principal, Ranked, and Unranked), I couldn't find any specific language which stated that the Academy had to accept the Principal nomination. If I missed something, could someone please point out where in the law this is written.
TennisDad, You are absolutely correct, I haven't been able to find anything under Title 10 U.S.C., either.
Or is it simply the norm that the Principal is offered an appointment and, as such, people assume that it is the law?
Seems so. However, I have had MOC offices tell me that principal noms MUST be appointed (if 3Q'd), as well. Has it been such the accepted norm, for so long, that even MOC's have blurred the letter of the law, with the spirit of the law?
not sure about the law, but have found it stated in a couple of places.
"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."
"An applicant selected for a principal nomination requires the Naval Academy to use the nomination vacancy for that applicant if the applicant is qualified."
COmom: The verbiage you cite above, (where I, too, have seen numerous places) seems to have originated from the 11/30/12: "Congressional Research Report for Congress; Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: An Overview and Resources for Outreach and Management" which describes statutory requirements for allocating congressional nominations to US service academies. However, where the researcher obtained his lawful facts in that report is what's in question.
As TennisDad states, the verbiage (so as stated by the researcher in that report and in regards to principal nominations) is not found within the governing Federal Law: Title 10 U.S.C. Subtitle C - Navy and Marine Corps, Part III - Education and Training, Chapter 603
So, hopefully a BGO or long time poster can answer: does the absolute acceptance for principal nomination winners boil down to accepted norms, academy regulations, legal history, or what??