Principal Nom. denied appointment USMA. Help

linkgmr said:
Erm....As I understood it, so long as you had a principal nom, and a triple Q, then by law the academy had to offer you admission. However, if there was some other kind of disqualifying factor...
Click to expand...

Which Law? I have not seen it, 10 USC 403: 4342 states Nominees may be submitted without ranking or with a principal candidate and 9 ranked or unranked alternates. Qualified nominees not selected for appointment under this subsection shall be considered qualified alternates for the purposes of selection under other provisions of this chapter.

It does not say the Principle Nom automatically get in if triple qualified. Just food for thought guys or gals as the case may be.
 
Last edited:
PotentialParent said:
Great posts from several very well meaning people. The Knight and Luigi top the list! .
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Thomas, I'm sorry. I know you must be reeling from the shock. Take time to reflect, take stock, review choices before you do anything else. The Knight said it best.

Good luck.
 
^^^^^^

Yeah, the OP needs to be very careful about how he deals with this. Look, for 2014, you're done. They are not going to change their minds. Deal with this with class and dignity and humility, and you may have a good chance for next year. If you act immature, entitled, or rude....well, you're probably going to burn some bridges.
 
Tinidril said:
He's Sensenbrenner's principal nom. With all the info. he provided online, it took 2 sec. to find out exactly who he is.
Click to expand...

Your're right about that. The Senator's own press release says: As a principal nominee, xxxxxx is assured an appointment to the Military Academy should he meet the Academy’s admittance requirements. (Underline my emphasis)
 
Tinidril said:
He's Sensenbrenner's principal nom. With all the info. he provided online, it took 2 sec. to find out exactly who he is.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're right. I am actually surprised at all the information in his press release (full name, parents name, high school, etc.)
 
Last edited:
js3486 said:
Which Law? I have not seen it, 10 USC 403: 4342 states Nominees may be submitted without ranking or with a principal candidate and 9 ranked or unranked alternates. Qualified nominees not selected for appointment under this subsection shall be considered qualified alternates for the purposes of selection under other provisions of this chapter.

It does not say the Principle Nom automatically get in if triple qualified. Just food for thought guys or gals as the case may be.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. A principal nomination is a guaranteed appointment to a fully qualified candidate.

Federal Form DD1870 is the form used by the MOC to submit his/her nomination. They have three choices as to how they will submit their slate of nominees:

COMPETITIVE SYSTEM:
Selection will be made by the Academy Academic Board in order of merit based on the "Whole Person" concept as to the candidate whose all around performance indicates the greatest likelihood of success as a career officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. When filling one vacancy, place an "X" in the "1st Vacancy" block and the "Competitive" block. If filling more than one vacancy, place an "X" in each of the numbered vacancy blocks being filled and the "Competitive" block.

PRINCIPAL/NUMBERED ALTERNATE SYSTEM:
A Principal and nine numbered alternates may be named for each vacancy available. An appointment will be offered if the Principal meets the eligibility criteria. If the Principal fails to meet the Academy minimum requirements, the next designated alternate candidate who qualified will succeed as the Principal. Place an "X" in the appropriate "Vacancy" block and the "Alternate" block, and type the number of preference of this alternate and the name of the Principal.

PRINCIPAL/COMPETITIVE ALTERNATE SYSTEM: A Principal and nine competitive alternates may be named for each vacancy available. If the named Principal fails to meet the requirements for admission, the Academy will select the top candidate among the competitive alternates designated. Place an "X" in the appropriate "Vacancy" block and the "Competitive Alternate" block and the name of the Principal.

:cool:
 
But where's the law?

Luigi59, that's a federal form. But the fact that it's printed on the form doesn't make it a federal law. I assume that somebody, somewhere either passed a law in Congress or SecDefense passed a regulation sayng that the principal nominee gets an appointment. Does anybody know the citation for that?
 
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2687/RL33213_20051229.pdf?sequence=1

Nominees may be submitted in three categories: without ranking, with a
principal candidate and nine ranked alternates, or with a principal candidate and nine
unranked alternates.6 When the Member specifies a principal candidate, that
individual will be appointed to a DOD academy as long as he or she meets all other admission criteria.​
Click to expand...
This is the whole point of a principal nomination.

It's all moot. The Candidate is not qualified for admission. While a MOC can name a principal nominee for an appointment they cannot tell the military to issue a waiver nor determine qualification.

While the Academy does not appear to be willing to grant him a conduct waiver now, this does not preclude them from granting him a conduct waiver in the future.

@mayhemmadness - your life is not over. Keep moving in one direction, forward. If you have a record, consider hiring a lawyer and investigating getting it expunged when you turn 18. Sometimes this occurs automatically and if this is the case make sure this happens.
It is likely that if you enlist you will be granted a waiver - it is much easier to get one by enlisting. If you want a military career then enlisting and proving to the Army that you are a good soldier with leadership potential and continued good conduct you have an excellent shot at another go for West Point.
I can understand how dissappointed you must be, probably kicking yourself and wishing you can turn back the clock. Keep your head up and keep looking in front of you. Your ability to overcome this adversity will serve you well in the future.
 
Just A Mom and Luigi, I know it doesn't matter for this candidate. And it reads as though the definition of what's "qualified" can change from year to year, giving the admissions board more latitude than apparent. But I'm still curious - where's the law or reg? Just A Mom, what you sent is a very helpful analyst's paper with legal citations for some points, but not for this.
I think we may be talking about a long-standing internal policy rather than a matter of law.
 
In the "Instructions for Candidates Offered Admission" the section under Police Record Check states "these records are required regardless of the plea or verdict and should not be disregarded, even if you were told the records were "expunged" or "sealed." You have to provide West Point copies of the court records, correct?
 
It is the policy paper for Congress.

Dixieland - correct. however, getting the record expunged will help with his case. In some fields (like teaching) you need the record expunged.
 
..but that doesn't make it a law.

Just_A_Mom said:
It is the policy paper for Congress.

D.
Click to expand...

The policy paper is written by an analyst for informational use by Congressional reps. It includes some citations to law. it also includes descriptions of current practice, opinion, and recommendations for change. It does not contain a citation to any law or regulation for the proposition that a principal nominee is automatically appointed if 3Qd. And the policy paper wasn't voted on, so it's not law.
 
SeaMars said:
Just A Mom and Luigi, I know it doesn't matter for this candidate. And it reads as though the definition of what's "qualified" can change from year to year, giving the admissions board more latitude than apparent. But I'm still curious - where's the law or reg? Just A Mom, what you sent is a very helpful analyst's paper with legal citations for some points, but not for this.
I think we may be talking about a long-standing internal policy rather than a matter of law.
Click to expand...

SeaMars said:
The policy paper is written by an analyst for informational use by Congressional reps. It includes some citations to law. it also includes descriptions of current practice, opinion, and recommendations for change. It does not contain a citation to any law or regulation for the proposition that a principal nominee is automatically appointed if 3Qd. And the policy paper wasn't voted on, so it's not law.
Click to expand...

Sigh. :rolleyes:

Tell us - what is a principal nomination?

Tell us - what is the difference between a principal nomination and a competitive nomination?

Tell us - if there is no difference between a principal nomination and a competitive nomination, then why are they even mentioned as two distinct types of nominations?



And the policy paper wasn't voted on, so it's not law.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a law. Why do you think it does? There are many requirements to admission that are not listed in the US Code.
 
See these posts above:
Erm....As I understood it, so long as you had a principal nom, and a triple Q, then by law the academy had to offer you admission. However, if there was some other kind of disqualifying factor...

Which Law? I have not seen it, 10 USC 403: 4342 states Nominees may be submitted without ranking or with a principal candidate and 9 ranked or unranked alternates. Qualified nominees not selected for appointment under this subsection shall be considered qualified alternates for the purposes of selection under other provisions of this chapter.

I didn't say it had to be a law, and, yes, I know what the different kinds of nominations are. Just trying to figure out where the practice came from. The SAs certainly have the ability, within the bounds of law, to set admissions standards and policies. The other posters cited above seemed to think that it was a violation of law not to admit a principal nominee.
 
SeaMars - have you considered changing your name to "SeaLawyer"? :wink:

(just kidding! really! :smile:)

The US Code breaks it out. The Congressional policy paper provides the definitions and the implementaion for the US Code for members of Congress. If the MOC chooses the competitive method then the Academy is required to rank and appoint by order of merit. If the naming the principal nominee was not binding then why would the MOC bother?
 
Um-m-m, this has been great to learn about the differences between principal, alternates and "pool of 10" candidates. However, this specific situation comes down to the content of a post this person made on Dec 26 when he asked for help regarding the DoDMERB not granting a waiver for alcohol use. He noted in that post that he had two municipal citations for underage consumption. At that time L. Mullen, DoDMERB, handled the issue with this candidate.

I must reason that principal nominee or not, tripleQ or not, football recruit or not, this candidate was disqualified. While the vehicle was the medical review, the info would have appeared as a result of the background check. After all it wasn't just admitting to having too much sherry with Aunt Sophie at Thanksgiving, there were very real laws broken, too. Getting picked up one time is a foolish youth but twice? Blatant disregard.

I know I'm at risk for harsh criticism here for being judgemental but how about all of those qualified, straight-arrow candidates that aren't going to receive appointments? Should a higher-risk candidate be given an appointment over them? I think not.
 
Grannie said:
Um-m-m, this has been great to learn about the differences between principal, alternates and "pool of 10" candidates. However, this specific situation comes down to the content of a post this person made on Dec 26 when he asked for help regarding the DoDMERB not granting a waiver for alcohol use. He noted in that post that he had two municipal citations for underage consumption. At that time L. Mullen, DoDMERB, handled the issue with this candidate.

I must reason that principal nominee or not, tripleQ or not, football recruit or not, this candidate was disqualified. While the vehicle was the medical review, the info would have appeared as a result of the background check. After all it wasn't just admitting to having too much sherry with Aunt Sophie at Thanksgiving, there were very real laws broken, too. Getting picked up one time is a foolish youth but twice? Blatant disregard.

I know I'm at risk for harsh criticism here for being judgemental but how about all of those qualified, straight-arrow candidates that aren't going to receive appointments? Should a higher-risk candidate be given an appointment over them? I think not.
Click to expand...

Go Grannie, go grannie, go grannie, GO!!
 
Having a record like this can also very likely affect your ability to obtain a security clearance. If you arent eligible for at least a secrect clearance then you aren't commissionable (at least thats how it is in the CG). If you wouldnt be eligible for a commission after four years then the Academies have no reason to appoint you.
 
It is also my understanding that once you receive an appointment a candidate must stay "in good standing" physically, medically and scholastically which as already been discussed includes character evaluation. So for someone who has already received an appointment and is waiting to go to SA there is a possibility of acquired appointment being repealed.

Debating the "ins and outs" of the law does not seem particularly pertinent in this situation. The candidate has hopefully learned a very valuable yet painful life lesson regarding actions and consequences. Hopefully candidate can accept the lesson, move forward in a positive direction and step away quickly from disappointment and brash ideas about making a "huge ruckus" regarding the appointment for Class of 2014. This would certainly not be the way to find oneself appointed to the Class of 2015. Or perhaps even another path to miltary service might be available.

Continuing to endlessly discuss the laws and what the SA must and must not do does not (in my opinion anyway) serve the candidate in figuring out the next step on the path. In the end, the SA has the final say and this time, for this particular candidate has said "no thank you".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top