LOA Question

usna1985

10-Year Member
Especially when we know it was from a BGO volunteer who has not authority to direct anything in the process.
Neither can USNA direct anything re the nomination process. They can recommend things that will help candidates but can't direct a civilian candidate to do anything.

Just to be clear, USNA tells BGOs to advise their candidates to apply to all nom sources for which they're eligible. The BGO was likely passing along this advice. Whether it is a "direction" or "advice" lies in the tone and perception of those involved. It's up to the candidate whether to take the advice.

I agree that, for an LOA candidate with a Pres nom, it probably doesn't make sense to pursue MOC noms for that SA. However, for LOA candidates relying on MOC noms, nothing is set in stone until the slate is submitted to USNA, which could be as late as Jan. 31, regardless of when the candidate is notified of the nom by the MOC. I can envision all sorts of scenarios where the "original" nom falls through before it is submitted -- and I'm sure USNA has lived these scenarios.

Thus, they suggest everyone apply for all noms. If the MOCs don't want to duplicate noms for LOA (or other) candidates, they are certainly capable of getting together to ensure this doesn't happen -- and many do just that.
 
... However, for LOA candidates relying on MOC noms, nothing is set in stone until the slate is submitted to USNA, which could be as late as Jan. 31, regardless of when the candidate is notified of the nom by the MOC. I can envision all sorts of scenarios where the "original" nom falls through before it is submitted -- and I'm sure USNA has lived these scenarios.

...
Hold on here. Have you or anyone on this forum EVER heard of an LOA recipient receiving an MOC nomination rescinded once "the candidate is notified of the nom by the MOC. "

Conjuring up hypothetical "scenarios where the 'original' nom falls through before it is submitted -- and I'm sure USNA has lived these scenarios" seems rather absurd. Can you give an example? This seems to be a contrived hypothetical that implies a scenario that none, including USNA, have never even inkled at. Are we suggesting here that MOCs might go back on their communicated word to recipients? That they were confused? That they miscounted to 11 instead of 10? What?

This strikes me as posing a hypothetical scenario that to anyone's knowledge has not occurred, nor will occur to anyone's knowledge, and introduces a new notion that once one has a principal and/or LOA-accompanied nomination in hand they should continue to pursue others. I believe this is confusing, equivocating, and risks misinforming interested persons.

Let's be clear. We're ONLY talking about those who are either principal nominees and/or LOA recipients with an MOC or other nomination.
 

Vista123

5-Year Member
Thanks so much for clarifying.
NO problem Whistle PIg, Im happy to help you out.

DIRECT:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/direct
To cause to move toward a goal; aim.
To show or indicate the way


Wikipedia
di•rect
/diˈrekt/
verb. guide - manage - conduct - steer - lead - administer


Put it in a sentence:
My son's BGO directed (lead, guided) my son to get a second nomiantion as it is helpful to USNA. My son followed what his BGO said.

Sorry Whistle Pig, next time Ill type slower so you arent so confused.:thumb:
 
Last edited:

usna1985

10-Year Member
Conjuring up hypothetical "scenarios where the 'original' nom falls through before it is submitted -- and I'm sure USNA has lived these scenarios" seems rather absurd. Can you give an example?
MOC resigns or dies after decision made but before slate is submitted and new MOC wants to pick his/her own folks.

I've never heard of it happening but I would never assume my limited experience covers the entire range of MOCs over recent history. Stranger things happen in the world. I don't know of any other great reason for USNA to suggest candidates with LOAs pursue multiple noms . . . giving them more "flexibility" for slotting isn't a great reason in my book.

If I had an LOA and "the promise" of a nom, I would continue to pursue other nom sources until I had confirmation that USNA had received my nom. At that point, there is no need to pursue other noms and withdrawing from consideration for those other noms makes sense. However, if it were my future, I would not want to give up on other nom sources until I was 100% sure that my nom was in the hands of USNA. This goes for Pres as well -- I would want to see that USNA agreed that my parent(s) service qualified me for that nom.

Yes, the odds are VERY, VERY slim that something goes wrong. But I wouldn't want to take that chance. Others may well take a different approach and I'm not criticizing them for so doing.
 

haz

5-Year Member
my DS got an LOA and it stated the only thing he needed to get for his appointment was a Nomination. He did get the MOC nom and did get his appointment. I think USNA would like all candidates to get as many noms as they can so USNA has some flexability in who to charge the appointment too, however a candidate with an LOA will get an appointment if he gets any nomination (only one needed) and is 3Qed.

I don't think Vista's DS was asked to get another nom to secure his appointment only to help the academy with other candidates that might be on the same slate that did not have an LOA.
 

usna1985

10-Year Member
I don't think Vista's DS was asked to get another nom to secure his appointment only to help the academy with other candidates that might be on the same slate that did not have an LOA.
I understand the reason agree but my personal opinion is that this is a bad reason. I don't believe that a candidate with an LOA and a confirmed nom should be asked to go through the process with other MOCs just to make USNA's life easier or, quite honestly, to make opportunities for other candidates. It's a lot of work for the candidate (and the MOC's nominating committees) that isn't necessary.

If USNA wants other folks off a slate with an LOA candidate, they can slot those candidates to SecNav or another source.

Again, just my personal opinion.
 

haz

5-Year Member
USNA1985

I agree with you 100%. I was just trying to point out to the OP how an LOA works. I think you, WP, and Vista are all saying the same thing. I think for Vista a better word insted of "directed" would have been "asked".

For the OP. If a candidate is 3Qed and gets an LOA He or she will get an appointment if they get a nomination. The timing is up to USNA and when the Nom is recieved. In my DS case he got his nom in Dec. but did not get his appointment untill Jan.
 
P.S.S. And as for the odds being slim re:
Yes, the odds are VERY, VERY slim that something goes wrong. But I wouldn't want to take that chance. Others may well take a different approach and I'm not criticizing them for so doing
In fact, the odds are 0% to the very best of anyone's knowledge. Until you can "show me" even if I'm not from Missouri, suggesting their is some mythological chance that the MOC will croak and the candidate will be stuck in a lurch is ludicrous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The points are merely 2:

1. When misinformation is presented, whether intended or a function of simply misusing the language or ignorance of the process, it merits clarification and in this case, correction.

2. When that initially inaccurate information is then supported by portraying a "what if" scenario that has never existed to anyone's knowledge (on this or any other forum I've seen.) smacks of equivocating.

IF that were to be the case or even a recommendation? Every LOA candidate would be explicitly informed to proceed in seeking multiple nominations. And that would be explicitly for the "what if" scenarios that have been posed if non-existant. In other words, ALL candidates would be told to do the same ... because for whatever reasons their MOC's word cannot be counted on. It's ridiculous.

btw, there is some "middle ground" on this issue. What might it be? Simply this ... Immediately inform all of one's outstanding nominating requests that a nomination has been received, and let them determine if for whatever reason the now-nominated candidate merits the time and consideration of their committee and process, thus putting the onus for flexibility upon the nominators and not the candidate. My guess is that most would say, "congrats and GO NAVY!" but would not waste those man hours on an already nominated candidate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

esu8

5-Year Member
Clarity

WP, I don't know about anyone else but I am absolutely clear what its all about after reading your posts.:shake::shake::shake::shake::biggrin:
 
Last edited:

usnabgo08

USNA 2008/BGO
10-Year Member
Am I missing something?

The only real situation this applies to is someone with an LOA and Presidential nomination or other nomination that is received very early in the process (i.e. could apply to JROTC/ROTC noms or the few MOCs that decide way early on).

Otherwise, most nomination results aren't known until a candidate has already gone through all of their MOCs. So not sure how a candidate would "know" they have been nominated and could stop the process with others. Are there some instances where candidates might know before their next interview? Probably. However, there isn't any harm in going through with the other interviews, bringing the LOA documentation (to which the MOCs should already be receiving a copy). If they decide not to nominate the candidate based on the fact he/she received an LOA, then let them make that decision and the worst case scenario is some gas and time was "wasted." At least the DS/DD maybe learned something from the interview.

I think it would be a bad idea to waste time in submitting all the application/paperwork to the MOC and not even end up going through with the process. I see no harm or foul in trying to go for all nominations, even if a candidate already knows they have one. It really isn't that much more work for the MOC.
 
Last edited:

navypilot

5-Year Member
It is my understanding you dont find out (ever) whose slate you were charged to. .
Actually you will find out, but not in the way you may expect. I was prior enlisted so had a SECNAV nom as well as a Congressman and Senatorial that I picked up while at NAPS. Always thougth I got in with my SECNAV, but after graduating from USNA, I ordered a copy of my transcript and on the transcript it stated I was accepted on my Senator's nomination...even included his name. I had no idea.
 

usnabgo08

USNA 2008/BGO
10-Year Member
The Alumni roster also will state which nomination a MIDN was charged to (among other interesting class data).
 

AF6872

10-Year Member
We thought we found out when we got the Capital Flag sent by our Senator upon graduation. I think that means he was charged with her nomination? Still don't know.
 

navydad17

5-Year Member
Nominations make things complicated.

If you get an LOA, fulfill the requirements, and receive some sort of nom, you will be appointed. When the folder arrives doesn't really matter in the long run.

Very few people get LOAs. It feels like there are a lot of LOAs, but this is a small internet community with maybe forty to sixty appointees frequenting these boards any given year.
Any idea how many LOA's were sent out this year?
 

Grad/Dad

5-Year Member
When DS received his LOA in early December, the admissions office told us unofficially that less than 100 had been sent at that time. They also indicated that they would stop sending LOA's in early Jan to focus on appointments. I am guessing the number is somewhere in the 125-150 range.
 

Prep

5-Year Member
WP, I don't know about anyone else but I am absolutely clear what its all about after reading your posts.:shake::shake::shake::shake::biggrin:

Really, I have more than a mediocre English education and I'm still unclear what he is all about. Can you enlighten the rest of us please?
 
Top