Nomination "hierarchy"

I don't want to turn this into a Texas nomination thread, but it is possible to receive more than one MOC nom in Texas. DS received all three (both senators and his congressman) before he "turned one down" so someone else could have it.
 
All nominations are equal. Normally the limiting factor is how many of those nominations can be used as appointments.

Also for JROTC: "All Navy/Marine Corps JROTC units are eligible to nominate three candidates each. All Navy/Marine Corps Honor Units with Distinction are eligible to nominate an additional three candidates each. All Army and Air Force Honor Units with Distinction are also eligible to nominate three candidates."

The distinction is that if you participate in an Army or Air Force JROTC...you HAVE to be in the Honor Unit with Distinction, to be eligible.
 
Whistle Pig said:
I don't know the answer to your first question.

However to your 2nd ... there is no connection between LOAs and nominations. In fact, most often LOAs are awarded long before nominations are determined. Not always, but often. So a #1 ranking means nothing relative to LOAs.

UNLESS ... the candidate already HAS the LOA when given the nom, #1 ... or #10. With that and all other aspects leading to scholastic, medical, and physical qualification, i.e. 3Qed ... then an offer of appointment must be made.
Click to expand...

Just curious, wouldn't it be foolish for an MOC to designate a candidate with an LOA as #1 in ranked order? Because, one way or the other, the academy is going to appoint the LOA candidate regardless of his ranking. So, the MOC might as well designate somebody else as #1. That way, they are guaranteed to get at least TWO selected from their slate. Isn't that correct?

Further, even if the MOC already has 4 at the academy (only once vacancy), both of these candidates will still get in - one way or the other.
 
3hourenergy said:
So a MCJROTC Nom is equal to a MOC Nom?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Only 20 appointments may be granted annually from all Junior and Regular nominations. And fewer than this with only a ROTC nomination probably will be eligible for appointments from the national pool.
 
All nominations are equal. Normally the limiting factor is how many of those nominations can be used as appointments.
Click to expand...

A nomination is a nomination. The key as, AJM mentions, is that the number of appointments from this category are limited.
 
jadler03 said:
All nominations are equal. Normally the limiting factor is how many of those nominations can be used as appointments.
Click to expand...

jadler03 said:
A nomination is a nomination. The key as, AJM mentions, is that the number of appointments from this category are limited.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can say that they are equal. One, on a list of 10, if you are either the best or the selectee identified by the MOC, and meet the other requirements, you are in. Additionally, if you are high enough on the standby list, qualification wise, and meet the other requirements, you are in.

The ROTC is truly a needle in the haystack. Only TWENTY total appointments per year, nation wide, from all ROTC units. Additionally, for the waiting list, the first 150 selectees are exclusively from MOC slates. Three-fourths of all selectees after that are basically from the same list with the addition of VP alternates. The one-fourth remaining must compete with the Presidential and other SecNav standbys. It is concivable that a candidate with only a ROTC nomination could be well into the national pool selection level and still not get an appointment.
 
AJM,

You are talking about the odds, not about whether at face value, the nominations are equal. The question was is a Senator's nomination equivalent to a MCJROTC nomination and the answer is yes. The odds of appointment from a MCJROTC (only) nomination are probably not favorable, but that wasn't the question asked.

If a candidate asked "is a Presidential Nomination equal to a MOC nomination"...according to how you responded below, it wouldn't. There are way more than 100 Presidential nominations and if you relied only on that, you could land in the same "odds" of not receiving an appointment (and competing against the same in the national pool, as you cited). However, at face value, a Presidential Nom = MOC nomination. Case and point, we already have an appointee on this board who received an appointment from that source -- proves my point that if you have a nomination and are 3Q, you are ELIGIBLE to compete for an appointment. In a similar boat, if a JROTC candidate was highly qualified and already had their JROTC officer submit a nomination, USNA might "charge" that appointment to the JROTC nomination quota.

Once again, as all BGOs state on here....applying for only one nomination is not a good plan....so apply to all.
 
Even when the odds are considered, a JROTC Nomination isn't too much different from a MOC nomination. I am not an official source but from my perspective, it seems relatively equal.

If you look at the profile for the Class of 2016, you will see that there were 142 candidates charged with a ROTC/JROTC nomination. There are 20 spots when competing in the ROTC/JROTC slate (if I have my information straight), meaning about ~7 people competing per spot.

I am not exactly sure how many spots there are when competing for a MOC nomination, but I know that 5,146 were given to candidates of the Class of 2016. If you look at the math:

1500 Offers of Appointment-100 Presidential Appointments-20 ROTC/JROTC Appointments-222 NAPSters-(An unknown amount of other Appointments from other slates, let's say X)=1,158 Offers of Appointment - X

Even if X is only 100 (which I feel it would be much more), that leaves 5,146 nomination competing for ~1000 spots. Roughly 5 people competing per spot.

Not to mention that even to get a MOC nomination in the average district, the average congressman submits 10 names per spot, right?

Again, I am merely a candidate and it is likely that all of this can be wrong, but this is how I thought of it.

In conclusion, would it be fair to say that competition in each slate is roughly equal? There are just less candidates in the ROTC/JROTC slates for less spots.
 
Zorph said:
In conclusion, would it be fair to say that competition in each slate is roughly equal? There are just less candidates in the ROTC/JROTC slates for less spots.
Click to expand...
It is competition in the national pool where there is a true divergence and any candidate who believes that both nominations are equal may be left behind. Just for simplicity of math, lets say 350 appointees come from the national pool. The first 150 are exclusively from MOC alternates. ROTC nominees are only eligible, along with Presidential nominees, for one fourth of the remaining 200. Each and every MOC nominee who applies will be eligible for the national pool. Only a small fraction of ROTC nominees will be afforded the same chance.
 
jrotc/rotc nom.

Although "any" nomination can lead to an appointment, it is always best to have as many nominations as possible, so that there are many "paths" for the candidate to the academy. The JROTC/ROTC nomination (if it's all you've got) is a very narrow path.
 
nofodad said:
The JROTC/ROTC nomination (if it's all you've got) is a very narrow path.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no excuse for this. Everyone is eligible for a VP nomination. And, while those with solely a VP nomination are not eligible for the first 150 of the aforementioned NWL appointees, they are eligible for three fourths of the remainder. Much better than the ROTC/JROTC. Without having to understand all of this is why Admissions simply tells everyone to apply for all sources available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top