Is a principal nomination worth anything?

P

p_2023

Class of 2023
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
12
What is the exact significance of a principal nomination to USNA? What percent of principal nominees that are 3Qd receive appointments?
 
A principal nomination, along with 3Q, means an offer of appointment is forthcoming. Of candidates with a principal nomination and 3Q, 100% receive offer of appointment.
 
To add to MidCake's answer, each MOC has a choice to utilize a competitive nomination process or a Principal Nomination process. The majority use a competitive process, but there are still many MOC's who use the Principal system. If you are the recipient of a Principal Nomination, AND you meet all the 3Q requirements, then you are golden.

The following is from the "Nominations" sticky note on this forum:
What are “principal” noms?

MOCs can submit their slate in one of three ways. It is ENTIRELY up to them; they can do it differently for different SAs and they can change their approach every year. Some may tell candidates how they do it but they aren’t required to.

The first way is “Principal Nominee with Competitive Alternates.” Here, the MOC makes one candidate his/her “principal nominee.” That means that, if that candidate is fully qualified, the SA MUST offer him/her an appointment. [Several years ago, a very small number of 3Qed candidates with principal noms to USNA did NOT receive appointments -- the law describing USNA admissions is worded slightly differently than for USAF and USMA. Thus, for USNA only, 3A+ a principal nom is almost a guarantee but not 100%]. Competitive alternates means that, if the principal nominee is not fully qualified, the SA has discretion in choosing the remaining 9 (or fewer if there were fewer than 10 nominees) if they are otherwise qualified.

The second way is “Principal Nominee with Ranked Alternates.” This differs from the above in that the MOC ranks all 10 of his/her nominees. The SA must go down the list. So, if the principal nominee isn’t qualified, the SA must offer the nomination to the next highest ranked, fully qualified candidate on the list and so on.

The third way is a competitive slate. Here, the MOC gives a list (or “slate”) of 10 (or fewer) candidates to the SA and lets the SA decide which one they think best for the offer of appointment. This is the MOST common method among MOCs.

Will I know if I’m the principal nominee?

Most MOCs who give principal noms tell the nominee of his/her status. But it’s up to the MOC to do so, although your RD also has that information.

For more info on noms, see the "Sticky note" on Noms from this Forum.
https://www.serviceacademyforums.com/index.php?threads/nominations-faq.33450/

EDIT:
Cross posted with the amazing fast draw of @Capt MJ
 
I agree it’s not 100%. It is extremely high though. I would say well into the 90s. I don’t have stats or proof of that, just my judgment being on the boards the last few years.
 
I agree with others that it's high but not guaranteed. USNA is not required by law to honor principal nominations the way USMA is. They do try but it's not a guarantee. There have been years where qualified with a Principal Nom did not leave to an appointment for everyone.
 
At least ten dollars.
 
To amplify on the above . . . having a principal nom and being 3Q is a virtual guarantee of an appointment. Also, all of the SAs want to stay on the good side of Congress and failing to appoint a principal nominee w/o a "good" reason is generally a bad idea.

The issue of a SMALL number of principal nominees not receiving appointments came to the forefront several years ago when it appeared that some MOCs might have been gaming the system a bit or at least created a situation that put USNA in a tough position. What seems to have happened is that some MOCs nominated one or more LOA candidates while also nominating a non-LOA candidate as their principal nominee for the same slate. This essentially "forced" USNA to take multiple candidates from these slates -- the LOA candidates as well as the principal. (Under a competitive slate, USNA would almost certainly have selected one of the LOA candidates as the slate "winner"). It happened with enough frequency that year that USNA had much too high a yield and didn't have enough sources against whom to charge all of the nominees or enough slots to admit them all.

To address the overage, it seemed that USNA looked at those slates and, in a small number of cases, determined that the principal nominee was not nearly as qualified as the LOA candidates (or even other non-LOA candidates on the slate). In those cases that year, the principal nominee was turned down.

However, to be clear, this is a VERY, VERY rare occurrence. Nothing in life is guaranteed -- and that is nowhere more true than in the military -- but being named the principal nominee is typically a very, very helpful thing for those candidates of MOCs who use that method.
 
usna1985 said:
To amplify on the above . . . having a principal nom and being 3Q is a virtual guarantee of an appointment. Also, all of the SAs want to stay on the good side of Congress and failing to appoint a principal nominee w/o a "good" reason is generally a bad idea.

The issue of a SMALL number of principal nominees not receiving appointments came to the forefront several years ago when it appeared that some MOCs might have been gaming the system a bit or at least created a situation that put USNA in a tough position. What seems to have happened is that some MOCs nominated one or more LOA candidates while also nominating a non-LOA candidate as their principal nominee for the same slate. This essentially "forced" USNA to take multiple candidates from these slates -- the LOA candidates as well as the principal. (Under a competitive slate, USNA would almost certainly have selected one of the LOA candidates as the slate "winner"). It happened with enough frequency that year that USNA had much too high a yield and didn't have enough sources against whom to charge all of the nominees or enough slots to admit them all.

To address the overage, it seemed that USNA looked at those slates and, in a small number of cases, determined that the principal nominee was not nearly as qualified as the LOA candidates (or even other non-LOA candidates on the slate). In those cases that year, the principal nominee was turned down.

However, to be clear, this is a VERY, VERY rare occurrence. Nothing in life is guaranteed -- and that is nowhere more true than in the military -- but being named the principal nominee is typically a very, very helpful thing for those candidates of MOCs who use that method.
Click to expand...

That’s fascinating ... why would a MOC nominate an unqualified or less than qualified applicant?

Friendships? Donors?
 
A1Janitor said:
usna1985 said:
To amplify on the above . . . having a principal nom and being 3Q is a virtual guarantee of an appointment. Also, all of the SAs want to stay on the good side of Congress and failing to appoint a principal nominee w/o a "good" reason is generally a bad idea.

The issue of a SMALL number of principal nominees not receiving appointments came to the forefront several years ago when it appeared that some MOCs might have been gaming the system a bit or at least created a situation that put USNA in a tough position. What seems to have happened is that some MOCs nominated one or more LOA candidates while also nominating a non-LOA candidate as their principal nominee for the same slate. This essentially "forced" USNA to take multiple candidates from these slates -- the LOA candidates as well as the principal. (Under a competitive slate, USNA would almost certainly have selected one of the LOA candidates as the slate "winner"). It happened with enough frequency that year that USNA had much too high a yield and didn't have enough sources against whom to charge all of the nominees or enough slots to admit them all.

To address the overage, it seemed that USNA looked at those slates and, in a small number of cases, determined that the principal nominee was not nearly as qualified as the LOA candidates (or even other non-LOA candidates on the slate). In those cases that year, the principal nominee was turned down.

However, to be clear, this is a VERY, VERY rare occurrence. Nothing in life is guaranteed -- and that is nowhere more true than in the military -- but being named the principal nominee is typically a very, very helpful thing for those candidates of MOCs who use that method.
Click to expand...

That’s fascinating ... why would a MOC nominate an unqualified or less than qualified applicant?

Friendships? Donors?
Click to expand...

To get more constituents in. This happened to me. One senator did competitive and the other did principal. I got a letter from the competitive senator indicating that I was being put on the principal slate because I had an LOA in order to maximize candidates chances. I didn't care because I knew in my state I would only get a nomination from one of them so I knew I had a nomination and with an LOA, I knew I was pretty golden at that point. I was not the principal nom on the principal slate, but I was charged there so there were multiple of us that got in off of that slate.
 
A1Janitor said:
That’s fascinating ... why would a MOC nominate an unqualified or less than qualified applicant?
Click to expand...
Here are some sample situations that can occur: MOC's don't know if the candidate has passed or CAN pass DoDMERB. MOC may be unaware of background check issues. (past offenses etc.)

Nepotism and political favoritism issues are minimized nowadays due to the fact that most MOC"s use panel/committees comprised of Veterans and SA alums to conduct the interviews and make recommendations. The actual congressional rep or Senator usually doesn't even attend the interviews. This makes the process less prone to corruption.
 
AROTC-dad said:
A1Janitor said:
That’s fascinating ... why would a MOC nominate an unqualified or less than qualified applicant?
Click to expand...
Here are some sample situations that can occur: MOC's don't know if the candidate has passed or CAN pass DoDMERB. MOC may be unaware of background check issues. (past offenses etc.)

Nepotism and political favoritism issues are minimized nowadays due to the fact that most MOC"s use panel/committees comprised of Veterans and SA alums to conduct the interviews and make recommendations. The actual congressional rep or Senator usually doesn't even attend the interviews. This makes the process less prone to corruption.
Click to expand...

LOL that makes sense. My son has several nominations and an LOA but is colorblind. Though he wasn’t a principal nom (that we know of) - he was told that he was the first choice of the committee.
 
Our nomination letter stated that our MOC uses the competitive method and that each SA must admit one from the slate of 10 but can admit as many as they choose from the slate
 
That’s fascinating ... why would a MOC nominate an unqualified or less than qualified applicant?
Click to expand...

"Quality" or qualification is in the eye of the beholder. It could be that a candidate knocks it out of the park during an interview but, on paper, isn't nearly as strong as others. Or, the MOC committee cares more about certain elements of an application than does USNA. Or the MOC could ask for different information (essays, LOCs) than USNA and the MOC committee finds those very persuasive.

Or, as I alluded to, some MOCs could be trying to use this process to get more of their candidates appointments (the LOA candidate(s) and the principal nominee).
 
My DS was the Principal Nom from our Congressman, and was advised so in a letter. Still, we waited 2.5 (painstaking, CPR appropriate) weeks before confirmation he had received the Appointment. I had read these threads enough to know and believe nothing is a "sure thing" or "100%" until the BFE is received. My 2021 is back at the Yard now and couldn't be happier, nor I more proud of him!!
 
mcfamilyof4 said:
Our nomination letter stated that our MOC uses the competitive method and that each SA must admit one from the slate of 10 but can admit as many as they choose from the slate
Click to expand...

> Just so readers here are not mislead....the SA cannot "admit as many as they choose..." . Each MOC has a limit (5) on the number of persons in each Service at a given time charged against them. Thus, there are usually 1 (maybe 2) from each competitive slate. Of course, those that are not selected from the slate go onto NWL, but those selected are not charged against the MOC.
 
^^^
+1

USNA can admit as many as they want from an MOC's slate but only to the extent they have sources against which to charge each of the candidates (e.g., another MOC from whom they received a nom, President, VP, SecNav [can't apply to it but is a charging source), etc.). As Old Navy says, usually only 1-2 per year can be charged to a particular MOC, so USNA must find other sources if they want to appoint additional folks off of the slate.
 
Old Navy BGO said:
> Just so readers here are not mislead....the SA cannot "admit as many as they choose..." . Each MOC has a limit (5) on the number of persons in each Service at a given time charged against them. Thus, there are usually 1 (maybe 2) from each competitive slate. Of course, those that are not selected from the slate go onto NWL, but those selected are not charged against the MOC.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarity. That’s what the letter said though which i thought was odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top