Principal Nom- Wait List

OysterMom said:
I have been following this thread, and have been variously confused, frustrated and upset on behalf of the waitlisted principal-nom candidates. I, too, thought that the principal nomination plus 3Q was a guarantee. I did an internet search to see what, if anything, USNA says about it, and I tripped over this:


(Dig down, there is a LOT of information here)

Also found the main page here:

The part that I am wondering about now has to do with the "vacancy" dimension. If the MOC already has 5 MIDNs charged to his/her office, does that render the principal nomination moot?
Click to expand...

That information goes a long way to explaining what is going on. It explains how the kid I know got admitted and another primary-nom in the state did not.

I also found out from a long-time BGO that people that have been appointed do not know what nomination source they are charged against. Most appointees had multiple nominations - so it's hard to tell which MOC slots are filled and which are open.
 
OysterMom said:
I have been following this thread, and have been variously confused, frustrated and upset on behalf of the waitlisted principal-nom candidates. I, too, thought that the principal nomination plus 3Q was a guarantee. I did an internet search to see what, if anything, USNA says about it, and I tripped over this:

http://www.usna.edu/AboutAIS/nominations.html

(Dig down, there is a LOT of information here)

Also found the main page here: http://www.usna.edu/AboutAIS/

The part that I am wondering about now has to do with the "vacancy" dimension. If the MOC already has 5 MIDNs charged to his/her office, does that render the principal nomination moot?
Click to expand...

I too thought this might be a factor (involving a complex combination of redistricting, EAP-LOA'S, RA's ,etc), but then I learned that my DS Representative had two vacancies this year. For the first one, he submitted DS a Principal Nominee, with 9 unranked competitive alternates. He expressed that it was his intention that it be filled first. For the second slate he submitted 10 nominees unranked. USNA ignored the 3Q'd Principal Nominee slate and moved to the second slate to appoint their EAP LOA. The first slate was left vacant with my DS waitlisted. In the meantime, the second slate appointee waived the appointment and chose to attend USAFA. As far as we are aware, the second slate position is also left vacant. My MOC now has no nominee in the game, so to speak. So, the argument that circumstances beyond Admissions' control overcame the lawful mandate to appoint the Principal Nomination is questionable, at best. Discussion of those questions is not really the topic of this forum, so I'll close it here. Speculation at this point won't solve the mystery. I'll leave it to Congress to defend its authority.
 
Last edited:
Other service academies

I'm curious, does anyone know if this has happened at the other SAs? It kind of concerns me if this only happens at USNA and not at any other service academies.
 
Ok, but that link contains information from USNA directly, right? And toward the top is the following:

General Information

In the AIS, there are four nomination types.

An applicant selected for a principal nomination requires the Naval Academy to use the nomination vacancy for that applicant if the applicant is qualified.

An applicant selected for a numbered alternate (1-9) nomination requires the Naval Academy to use the nomination vacancy in the order that the applicants are listed if the principal nominee for that vacancy declines or is not qualified. Each numbered alternate nominee is considered in order as each declines or is not qualified.

An applicant selected for a competitive alternate nomination requires the Naval Academy to use the nomination vacancy for that applicant if the applicant is qualified and the principal nominee identified declines or is not qualified.

An applicant selected for competitive nominations are the easiest for the Naval Academy to administer since it allows the USNA admissions process to select the best qualified from all qualified candidates nominated for a vacancy.

Right in the first nomination type, when referring to principal nominations, they use the word "requires."
So, WithYou, it seems that your DS should have been offered the appointment first, but especially now if the other appointee declined. I am as confused as ever, and still feeling so badly for those affected.
 
808DAD said:
I'm curious, does anyone know if this has happened at the other SAs? It kind of concerns me if this only happens at USNA and not at any other service academies.
Click to expand...

I do know that the two slate scenario my MOC submitted at USNA was similarly repeated at USMA. USMA appointed the Principal Nom first, then later appointed an unranked nominee from the second slate.
 
I just spoke to DD's USAFA ALO tonight.
Here's his take. USAFA has been drawing down for the last 3 years to get to the 4000 cadets limit from the high of 4800. USNA and USMA are doing their first draw down this year, so there are less slots this year than in previous years.

Principal nominations ARE NOT a guarantee of appointment, even 3Q. The only time they are guaranteed is if the MOC has no appointees at the academy (through redistricting if a new district is added perhaps?)

He also said that thinking a principal nomination is guaranteed appointment is a common misconception. It may have more weight to get a principal nom, but the academies have final say.
 
USAFA83GradWife said:
Principal nominations ARE NOT a guarantee of appointment, even 3Q. The only time they are guaranteed is if the MOC has no appointees at the academy (through redistricting if a new district is added perhaps?)

He also said that thinking a principal nomination is guaranteed appointment is a common misconception. It may have more weight to get a principal nom, but the academies have final say.
Click to expand...

Wow. We've been fed a lie :thumbdown:
 
USAFA83GradWife said:
I just spoke to DD's USAFA ALO tonight.
Here's his take. USAFA has been drawing down for the last 3 years to get to the 4000 cadets limit from the high of 4800. USNA and USMA are doing their first draw down this year, so there are less slots this year than in previous years.

Principal nominations ARE NOT a guarantee of appointment, even 3Q. The only time they are guaranteed is if the MOC has no appointees at the academy (through redistricting if a new district is added perhaps?)

He also said that thinking a principal nomination is guaranteed appointment is a common misconception. It may have more weight to get a principal nom, but the academies have final say.
Click to expand...

Well, he must believe what he is saying, but that may only be further evidence of the problem. Since the law, congressional publications, and naval publications are unequivocal that Principal Nomination, if 3Q'd, are mandatory appointments, then either this person is only one among many academy staff misinformed, or the combination of academy unilateral interpretal changes left unchallenged by Congress has lead to the confusion we now suffer. Does Academy staff truly believe they have discretion to ignore the law? Only Congress can clear up this mess. If it wishes to abandon its authority and that its nomination role only be advisory, then it should amend the law. If it desires to maintain the current law providing them the option to mandate an appointment, then it needs to enforce it. Its really that simple.
 
WithYou2018 said:
Well, he must believe what he is saying, but that may only be further evidence of the problem. Since the law, congressional publications, and naval publications are unequivocal that Principal Nomination, if 3Q'd, are mandatory appointments, then either this person is only one among many academy staff misinformed, or the combination of academy unilateral interpretal changes left unchallenged by Congress has lead to the confusion we now suffer. Does Academy staff truly believe they have discretion to ignore the law? Only Congress can clear up this mess. If it wishes to abandon its authority and that its nomination role only be advisory, then it should amend the law. If it desires to maintain the current law providing them the option to mandate an appointment, then it needs to enforce it. Its really that simple.
Click to expand...

I have tried to point out in previous posts that the law does not say that, and it is only the law that matters - not congressional publications, not reports from congressional committees, etc. Go read the actual law.
 
I couldn't find anything in Title X that says principals must be appointed if otherwise qualified.

However, I find it puzzling to say the least that the above seems to be almost universally "understood" or believed, notwithstanding USAFAGradwife's ALO. And appears in USNA's own instruction documents. And elsewhere.

It is also puzzling that although Title X uses the term "principal" nominee, nowhere in the law could I find a definition of such - can anyone else? It strikes me as odd that they would use the term without defining what it means. Why have a principal if the Academy chooses anyway? And if the Academy doesn't have to accept the principal, wouldn't that also mean that it doesn't have to follow the ranking on the slate (if ranked)? Wouldn't all these things simply fall into the category of the MOC's "recommendations"?

Clarification of all this would be a courtesy to all future candidates; it's just nice to know what the rules are. Then principal candidates could proceed with "that's nice, I'm principal, that means the MOC committee really likes me." And that's about it. Rather than proceed under the assumption (if 3Q) that an appointment is coming...
 
TennisDad said:
I have tried to point out in previous posts that the law does not say that, and it is only the law that matters - not congressional publications, not reports from congressional committees, etc. Go read the actual law.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this as well. We may need a lawyer to interpret the law and publications. If I remember correctly from my days working with DoD A-specs, little things like using "shall" vs "will" changes the meaning - "shall" being binding and "will" meaning optional.

That being said, I am no lawyer, so I have to defer to the ALO.
 
Link to Title 10

Following up on the numerous posts about Title 10 and my post last week. Here is a link to all 821 pages of Title 10 for those interested in reading:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112HPRT67344/pdf/CPRT-112HPRT67344.pdf

As Roseville stated, the law does not say that a "principal" must be appointed (nor does it say "will" or "shall") and "principal" is not a defined term or it would be capitalized. The law only says in section 6954 that nominations are given to various buckets of people (from MOCs, President, Sec. Nav, etc.). Those not appointed but deemed to be 'qualified' from this pool of nominees go to the qualified alternates pool. What is 'qualified'? Section 6958 says that nominees must be between 17 and 23 and '(2) shall be examined according to such regulations as the Secretary of the Navy prescribes, and if rejected at one examination may not be examined again for admission to the same class unless recommended by the Academic Board.' We don't know the criteria that Sec. Nav. / Admissions 'prescribes' and thus USNA has wide latitude in making appointments.

So, to me, this is consistent with USAFA83GradWife's discussion with ALO and 808Dad's information that the 'principal' designation and ranking of a slate is really an indication of the MOC committees preferences based on their assessment but is in no way binding on the Academy.

Very valid questions on what the point is of giving a principal nom or ranking the slate but maybe it does provide some weight when the Admissions Board Reviews.

Good luck to those still waiting.
 
What does a MOC really know?

Think about all the MOCs across the country and how you might rank them depending on your political affiliation and personal beliefs. You have a strong opinion of some and a less than optimal opinion of others. The academy knows the type of person that should be admitted and it's not always what the MOC recommends. I'm not saying politics played a role in any of the current principle nom's cases, but I'm sure you can imagine a situation in which a MOC pays someone back by nominating a certain candidate to a primary position. The academy needs to be able to see through the politics and appoint the best candidates for the academy. Another factor is that some MOCs are first termers and they have no clue how to conduct the nomination process.
 
2018USNA said:
Think about all the MOCs across the country and how you might rank them depending on your political affiliation and personal beliefs. You have a strong opinion of some and a less than optimal opinion of others. The academy knows the type of person that should be admitted and it's not always what the MOC recommends. I'm not saying politics played a role in any of the current principle nom's cases, but I'm sure you can imagine a situation in which a MOC pays someone back by nominating a certain candidate to a primary position. The academy needs to be able to see through the politics and appoint the best candidates for the academy.
Click to expand...

Good point. As I mentioned on another thread a while back, our MOC (who has been in office forever) told us right to our faces that, if he didn't have a committee to screen applicants, he would only nominate candidates of a certain minority race!
 
futuremarinemom said:
Good point. As I mentioned on another thread a while back, our MOC (who has been in office forever) told us right to our faces that, if he didn't have a committee to screen applicants, he would only nominate candidates of a certain minority race!
Click to expand...

That's a perfect example. Your MOC should be embarrased to think that way. Discrimination is never acceptable. Every applicant puts their heart and soul into that application process and should be judged on the merits of the application and not the color of skin.
 
2018USNA said:
Every applicant puts their heart and soul into that application process and should be judged on the merits of the application and not the color of skin.
Click to expand...

And they should be judged on those merits without any Congressman or Senator in between the applicant and the academy admissions office.

One academy seems to get it right, without putting up with the nonsense of a Congressman or Senator between the candidate and the academy admissions people.

Their nationwide merit-based system (without regard to Congressional geography) certainly makes more sense to me.
 
Freda'sMom said:
And they should be judged on those merits without any Congressman or Senator in between the applicant and the academy admissions office.
Click to expand...

I can see the need for represantation from all areas of the country since the school is a national school payed for by tax payers, but the MOC influence in the process could be reduced.
 
2018USNA said:
I can see the need for represantation from all areas of the country since the school is a national school payed for by tax payers, but the MOC influence in the process could be reduced.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this. I'm not really a proponent of making things "fair" because in reality, we live in a competitive world, but in this case, I agree that it is valuable and equitable to have representation from all parts of America.

It seems to me that to allow the MOC to submit only competitive, unranked slates would accomplish both the Navy's goals and provide a cross representation.

Of course, given the latest events this year, one could make the argument that the Navy is already doing that. :rolleyes: But to make it official would mean that everyone would understand the rules going in.
 
Freda'sMom,
I assume reference is to USCGA which does not require a congressional nom.

The USMMA does require a congressional nom but slates are not ranked and there is no
"Principal" designation.

Each MOC can nominate 10 and the Academy calls the ball based on the USMMA charter/mandate. Initially, seats are offered by state (eg PA has 10 seats each class, TX has 13 I believe, etc...) then on/about April 1, remaining chairs are filled by national merit ranking done by the academy.

Personally, I think the USMMA got it right but I am clearly biased.

I tell folks there are 3 applications that one need to pass to get admitted:
1) The specific Academy's application
2) The MOCs application (excluding Coasties). Apply to 2 senators and one Congressperson and you actually have 3 you are dealing with
3) The DOD application

Tough processes but taken together, I believe they best serve our country.




Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top