Parent of DS congratulated by our Senator as a " primary nominee. " His office told us he uses a Principal Nom candidate with competitive slate method. We are thrilled and relieved to apparently been awarded " a golden ticket nomination " ...almost. The followup letter used the term " a primary nominee" not the primary or " principal" nominee. When you are this excited you then get paranoid and hang on every word/ detail. I have read every thread available on the subject for clarity but the more I read the more confusing it gets. I am aware that the USNA has had some issues with not having appointed Principal Noms that were Q3 despite "the law". The USNA, according to others , have had some " carnage" in their appointment process in the past. See posts by usnabgoO8 on USNA Forum. My question is this. Why would my DS candidate - with a primary ( synomonous with "principal"? ) MOC nomination want or need to interview for other MOCs next weekend? If he is not appointed by the AFA From this MOC's slate , why would they appoint him from a different MOCs slate? Surely a second MOC board , informed of his earlier principal nomination, would'nt award him a second principal nomination and forego the opportunity to give it to another deserving, and competitive candidate. What would another, lesser ranked nomination serve when he already has been selected as someone else's #1? Is anyone aware of the AFA not giving an appointment to a MOC principal nominee ( who was otherwise Q3 and well qualified leadership, athletics, etc. ) . You would think someone would quickly release Principal nominees from competing for other MOC nominations, and taking up room on other slates. Other, competitive candidates could use the extra nomination slot(s). My DS enjoyed interviewing, but we can't see how more interviews/ nominations, could help or hurt his AFA appointment process if he is in fact a Principal Nom.