flieger83, I think we are probably closer to saying the same thing than some might realize. However, What we have here is two candidates who have not yet completed their CFA in July and seem to be ready to put their ALO on report for not being at their beck and call. And those on the forum who are willing to support them. First off, it is only July. The board doesn't meet for two months. And secondly, they have not yet completed their application (CFA). They need to relax. They need to realize that they are no longer the big fish in the small pond but a very small fish in a very large pond. They need to realize they are entering a part of their life where their needs and desires are secondary to that of the organization as a whole. They need to learn that instant gratification in the future may make way for a long slow process. Okay, I have said it.
I never in any way, shape, or form menat to imply that the ALO sat on a record. Let's just assume that the ALOs have done their jobs. They are familiar with all the info on the ALOWEB. They have talked to each counselor and gleaned as much information as they were able to gather. Maybe even talked to a few teachers. And their ROTC instructors. They have done their homework. One, they feel, is a top notch candidate. Since I agree that LOAs are a bad word, I will only say, one of the ALOs would bet the farm that this candidate will be appointed. The other is so so. Teachers were surprised he was applying to AFA. Not stellar academically. Not a lot of extracurriculars. Now human nature comes into play. Would the ALO be as apt to cancel his vacation to ensure that the board has the eval as the other? Heck, if I was ALO for the first, I may be on the phone to find out why he has not completed his CFA. But I would probably let the second one ride.
They way you described candidates before the board pretty much works the way I envisioned. It sounds as if the middle of the pack may make several trips before they get a nod.
Now I gotta go back and digest the rest of this. I will have more questions. One already pops up in that Christcorp, in his last paragraph, seems to imply that early applications may get appointments to the exclusion of a more qualified applicant who desn't get his package in until the deadline. That doesn't seem to follow the spirit of Federal law.
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for giving the impression that I thought ALOs/BGOs might sit on records. Not what I meant.
I never in any way, shape, or form menat to imply that the ALO sat on a record. Let's just assume that the ALOs have done their jobs. They are familiar with all the info on the ALOWEB. They have talked to each counselor and gleaned as much information as they were able to gather. Maybe even talked to a few teachers. And their ROTC instructors. They have done their homework. One, they feel, is a top notch candidate. Since I agree that LOAs are a bad word, I will only say, one of the ALOs would bet the farm that this candidate will be appointed. The other is so so. Teachers were surprised he was applying to AFA. Not stellar academically. Not a lot of extracurriculars. Now human nature comes into play. Would the ALO be as apt to cancel his vacation to ensure that the board has the eval as the other? Heck, if I was ALO for the first, I may be on the phone to find out why he has not completed his CFA. But I would probably let the second one ride.
They way you described candidates before the board pretty much works the way I envisioned. It sounds as if the middle of the pack may make several trips before they get a nod.
Now I gotta go back and digest the rest of this. I will have more questions. One already pops up in that Christcorp, in his last paragraph, seems to imply that early applications may get appointments to the exclusion of a more qualified applicant who desn't get his package in until the deadline. That doesn't seem to follow the spirit of Federal law.
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for giving the impression that I thought ALOs/BGOs might sit on records. Not what I meant.