LOA + Nomination = Offer of Appointment?

[usnabgo08]

All appointments must have a nomination but applicants chosen out of the national pool (including LOAs) do not count against the one or two slots a MOC may have open each year.

That is true. But your general statement that LOAs aren't counted against the MOC isn't true if the appointee had an LOA and USNA selected them to fill that MOC's vacancy. The same could be said of another appointee nominated by the same MOC (who didn't receive an LOA) and was selected from the "at-large" pool...they are not charged to that same MOC!

The "at-large" pool is limited to around 150 charged slots. SUPE's nominations are very rare -- the stat we got this summer was about 1-3 slots used per cycle. So there is a very small probability of receiving a SUPE's nomination (as stated numerous times before).

 

[Mongo]

But isn't this interview exchange an example of saying something rather stupid? You never indicate (or even hint) that you are not serious about a naval career when interviewing to get admission into the Naval Academy. Duh.

You have to take off your rose colored glasses when looking at the real world. Remember, the purpose of LOAs are to prevent the very highly qualified from jumping on offers such as his. He is going Marine and PLC/private university was an option the board never realized he was considering. They were looking for an excuse. If everyone were as you state, there would be no need for LOAs.

The "at-large" pool is limited to around 150 charged slots. SUPE's nominations are very rare -- the stat we got this summer was about 1-3 slots used per cycle. So there is a very small probability of receiving a SUPE's nomination (as stated numerous times before).

Even though it's getting smaller every year, it's actually a lot larger than 150. You may be confusing the Title 10 verbage. More than one head of Admissions has considered any usage of the Supts appointments as failure of the system.

 

[usnabgo08]

Even though it's getting smaller every year, it's actually a lot larger than 150. You may be confusing the Title 10 verbage.

I am not confusing anything....when the Head of Noms/Appts was asked about how the "national pool" process worked, I clearly remember the person saying only 150 spots can be charged there. That is straight from the source.

 

[time2]

Back to the original question.......YES.....LOA + NOM = Appointment.

 

[Mongo]

I am not confusing anything....when the Head of Noms/Appts was asked about how the "national pool" process worked, I clearly remember the person saying only 150 spots can be charged there. That is straight from the source.

Pay more attention. Here is Paragraph 6954:

5) 150 selected by the Secretary of the Navy in order of merit from qualified alternates nominated by persons named in clauses (3) and (4) of subsection (a).

Subject clauses are Senators and Congressmen.

Now for the rest of the story. When these are filled, if the class is not full, and it will not be, we go to the next paragraph, Paragraph 6956:

If it is determined that, upon the admission of a new class to the Academy, the number of midshipmen at the Academy will be below the authorized number, the Secretary may fill the vacancies by nominating additional midshipmen from qualified candidates designated as alternates and from other qualified candidates who competed for nomination and are recommended and found qualified by the Academic Board. At least three-fourths of those nominated under this subsection shall be from qualified alternates under clauses (2) through (8) of section 6954 (a) of this title, and the remainder shall be from qualified candidates who competed for appointment under any other provision of law. An appointment of a nominee under this subsection is an additional appointment and is not in place of an appointment otherwise authorized by law.

So the first 150 must be qualified alternates of MOCs only and 3/4 of all the remainder after that must have any other nomination. This is where the last 200 or so come in.

 

[usnabgo08]

Mongo,

Copy all, thanks for the reference.

 

[osdad]

If I recall my DD's LOA, the letter does not say anything about what flavor nomination she needed just that she needed one. The NA must (and will) find a slot given the agreement they signed.

As time2 said: LOA + Nom = Appointment

Don't confuse the issue with unnecessary complications.

Nothing but congratulations are in order. Well done.

 

[usna1985]

Just to clarify:

LOA + nom + passing CFA + medically qualified = Appointment

I've had candidates with an LOA and nom but who never got the medical waiver (e.g., ACL surgery that hadn't healed by I-Day). Rare, but it can happen.

 

[Dolphins2012]

Thanks Osdad, USNA1985 and everyone else. And thanks on behalf of my DS to all the congrats. This site has been truly invaluable. What a testimony to the USNA! Rest assured, he's excited but is well aware an LOA is not the endgame. Thank you all again!

 

[Whistle Pig]

HOW exciting is this!! WOOT WOOT! Go Navy!

 

[Memphis9489]

You have to take off your rose colored glasses when looking at the real world. Remember, the purpose of LOAs are to prevent the very highly qualified from jumping on offers such as his. He is going Marine and PLC/private university was an option the board never realized he was considering. They were looking for an excuse. If everyone were as you state, there would be no need for LOAs.

What does masking the fact that becoming a naval officer is NOT your prime objective have to do with LOAs?

My sons are a prime example. Initially, the Naval Academy was not their first choice. They did their BGO interview prior to getting their LOAs. While in the middle of their college hunt they received the LOAs. They even had their LOAs in hand when they did their MOC interviews. At no time did they ever reveal that becoming a naval officer was not a high priority for them. I knew attending the Naval Academy was not their first choice and I was OK with that. No big deal. But I also advised them on how to properly interview if the Naval Academy was ever to remain a viable option should they change their mind.

They eventually did change their mind and decided to attend the Naval Academy. And, I assure you, on I-Day, they were not all dreamy about someday serving in the fleet. I don't think that is all that unusual, by the way. I was the same way. I had no idea what it meant to be a naval officer. I was open minded about it (as were my sons), but it was nothing that really jazzed me at first. It kind of grew on me over my time at the Naval Academy.

The important thing is that a midshipman learn and adapt while at the Naval Academy. Sometimes the desire to serve one's country as a naval officer doesn't hit somebody until after they have arrived at the Naval Academy. If every appointee knew what it meant to serve one's country as a naval officer there would be no need for any professional training at the Naval Academy. Why go on Youngster Cruise or ProTraMid? The reason is that most midshipman have no idea what it means to be a naval officer and even the Naval Academy recognizes that.

I maintain, for a candidate to indicate that they are not all that interested in becoming a naval officer is "application suicide", whether they tell that to the BGO or during an interview with an MOC - and I don't see how that has anything to do with an LOA.

I ask any of you BGOs: What if a candidate shared with you that they had reservations about being a naval officer -or- that it is something that does not particularly interest them?

Although - I may have misunderstood what you meant by there not being any need for LOAs. I think it had an effect on my sons. Maybe we're actually saying the same thing.

 

[usna1985]

I ask any of you BGOs: What if a candidate shared with you that they had reservations about being a naval officer -or- that it is something that does not particularly interest them?

Interesting question. How I dealt with such a statement would likely depend on the context of the entire interview. There's a difference between not being gung-ho and expressing a lack of interest in serving.

For example, I've had several candidates this year tell me they have no idea what service selection they want. That's fine. They'll have 3+ yrs to decide. I try to ensure they understand their options (unrestricted line unless NPQ) and are okay with them but not knowing is not, in my book at least, a negative.

However, if someone told me they really weren't interested in serving in the military -- yes, that would be a negative. The reason the SAs exist is to produce officers for our military. Someone who doesn't want that MIGHT change his/her mind along the way but I'm not willing to chance it.

OTOH, I'm also cautious about 17-yr-olds who gush about desire to serve. I don't need to be "over convinced."

At the end of the day, don't lie about or embellish your desire to serve in the military. If you aren't reasonably sure you want to spend the next 10+ yrs of your life in the military, you really shouldn't be applying to a SA. Go to civilian college and, then if the desire hits you while there, attend OCS, apply for an ROTC scholarship or apply as a college student to a SA. I'm being serious.

The #1 reason people quit USNA (and I assume the other SAs) is that they realize it isn't what they wanted. And these are generally people who truly believed they did want a SA lifestyle. If you are ambivalent to start, I have a hard time believing you're suddenly going to love it once you're there. Not saying that never happens, just that it's a longshot.

 

[Memphis9489]

At the end of the day, don't lie about or embellish your desire to serve in the military. If you aren't reasonably sure you want to spend the next 10+ yrs of your life in the military, you really shouldn't be applying to a SA. Go to civilian college and, then if the desire hits you while there, attend OCS, apply for an ROTC scholarship or apply as a college student to a SA. I'm being serious.

It's quite possible that the BGO interview could occur early enough in the process where the candidate may still be wrestling with going to a service academy and serving significant years in the military -or- going a completely civilian route.

Let's not be naive and ignore there is not a little gamesmanship in the application process. The candidate starts burning bridges when they express their indifference, ambivalence, uncertainty, or reservations - no matter how honest they may be. They're not going to get points for this kind of honesty.

The burden is on the interviewer to ferret out their lack of sincerity not on the interviewee to offer it up. A good interviewer should be able to detect this.

As a candidate, you simply must show a willingness to serve in the military and a certain degree of certainty and eagerness at the prospect.

Get the nomination/appointment and then, if you still feel ambivalent and unenthused, just check the "No" box on the appointment and it will go to somebody else.

Your attitude might change from the time of your MOC/BGO interview and the time you have to decide to attend a SA or not.

As disingenuous as it may seem, my advice to candidates is to not eliminate themselves by committing "application suicide." It's possible to be too honest at an interview, in my opinion. Besides, you might know yourself as well as you think you do. I know I didn't.

 

[time2]

^^^ I agree. Having a candidate tell their BGO that the main/only reason they are applying is because it is something their parents want them to do is TOTALLY different then expressing some reservations/concerns about their career goals.

It would be good for candiates to be honest with themselves (and their parents) and understand the difference during the application process.

 

[Mongo]

It's quite possible that the BGO interview could occur early enough in the process where the candidate may still be wrestling with going to a service academy and serving significant years in the military -or- going a completely civilian route.

Let's not be naive and ignore there is not a little gamesmanship in the application process. The candidate starts burning bridges when they express their indifference, ambivalence, uncertainty, or reservations - no matter how honest they may be. They're not going to get points for this kind of honesty.

The burden is on the interviewer to ferret out their lack of sincerity not on the interviewee to offer it up. A good interviewer should be able to detect this.

As a candidate, you simply must show a willingness to serve in the military and a certain degree of certainty and eagerness at the prospect.

Get the nomination/appointment and then, if you still feel ambivalent and unenthused, just check the "No" box on the appointment and it will go to somebody else.

Your attitude might change from the time of your MOC/BGO interview and the time you have to decide to attend a SA or not.

As disingenuous as it may seem, my advice to candidates is to not eliminate themselves by committing "application suicide." It's possible to be too honest at an interview, in my opinion. Besides, you might know yourself as well as you think you do. I know I didn't.

Not sure if you meant not to be brutally honest but if you did, it is horrible advice. Yes, it is the BGO's job to detect intentions and the minute they find out that the candidate is not being honest, and they will, the evaluation grade will start decreasing.

Ambivilance is not the issue here at all. A LOA is a recruiting tool, a tool to capture the absolute best and brightest. The best and brightest who might feel an obligation to make their mark in the world. Whether it be medicine, research, foreign service, law, politics, education, or some other worthy endeavor, they want to be the best. We see it all the time on these forums with medicine. The purpose of the LOA is to capture a certain amount of these individuals, not to reward those who really really want to go to a SA.

 

[Luigi59]

A LOA is a recruiting tool, a tool to capture the absolute best and brightest. The best and brightest who might feel an obligation to make their mark in the world. Whether it be medicine, research, foreign service, law, politics, education, or some other worthy endeavor, they want to be the best. We see it all the time on these forums with medicine. The purpose of the LOA is to capture a certain amount of these individuals, not to reward those who really really want to go to a SA.

Bingo, +100.

Candidates and parents hoping for a LOA need only to read this explanation to understand why they are issued.

 

[Memphis9489]

Not sure if you meant not to be brutally honest but if you did, it is horrible advice. Yes, it is the BGO's job to detect intentions and the minute they find out that the candidate is not being honest, and they will, the evaluation grade will start decreasing.

Yes, my intent was to be brutally honest.

I know, for a fact, that BGO's do not possess these psychological super powers of perception because my sons were certainly ambivalent at the time of their BGO interview. At the time, the Naval Academy was not their first choice. They did not apply to any of the other service academies. And it's not as if their other choices were ROTC programs, either. They were ambivalent about serving in the military. It's not that they detested the idea - they just had not yet decided. They were being open-minded.

They changed their minds, however. It was actually quite surprising to me. And now they are fully committed and enthused with the prospect of serving their country. And they're doing very well at the Academy, by the way.

I can assure you - that was not the case over two years ago during their BGO (or MOC) interview.

Had they shared/indicated that ambivalence back then, they would not have the choices they have today.

I don't think this is horrible advice at all. What do you suggest the alternative is - tell the BGO that you are lukewarm about serving in the Navy while you are applying to the United States Naval Academy? If that's the case, why even apply? Cancel the interview!

17-yr-old kids can change their mind. What they think they don't want today may change by tomorrow.

As I said, they can always turn down an appointment if they still feel the same way. Some very deserving individual will benefit. It is no loss to the Navy or the Naval Academy.