Principal Nom- Wait List

Here's another SWAG. I'm just thinking out loud so don't harsh on me. :shake:

One of the things the ALO said was that the principal nom is guaranteed appointment if the MOC doesn't have anyone at the Academy. Could it be that this is where the misinterpretation came from? "Principal" being only the first appointment by the MOC -- treated as special? I can see how the MOC could confuse that as well.

For whatever its worth, DD's interviews with her MOC were actually with the committees made up of current and retired officers for the most part. The Senator and Rep both wanted to stay out of it because they wanted to avoid any favoritism charges.
 
Only two opinions matter.

I don't believe it was intended, but it came across that people are assigning dishonorable intentions to MOC's involved. So, I think we should clarify that neither the MOC's involved nor the Academy is acting from any motive other than the interest of the Navy. There just happens to be two opinions of how to serve it, the merit of Legislative Branch geographical based nominations and Executive Branch nominations, where nominations from each must ultimately meet minimum standards according to the Navy's WCS system and judgement.

Yes, abuse of authority by either party is possible. I am sure some MOC has used his/her authority for political gain, and I am sure some Naval or Marine officer has used the same to gain brownie points or personal favors from higher ranking officers. I trust either scenario is very rare and not indicative of nearly all other honorable actions.

In My DS's case, his MOC uses the Navy's WCS system, and directly consults the Navy's preliminary scoring and ranking of applicants as they proceed through the process. The MOC convenes a committee consisting of active duty officers (O6's and diverse backgrounds represented), non-partisan elected officials (in this case a city mayor), Business Leaders, and other community leaders. In addition to reviewing the same materials submitted to the academy, the committee interviewed face to face the candidates, in my DS case for about 30 minutes. The committee also knew something the academy did not. They knew the applicants preference should an applicant receive multiple appointments among the academies. In this case, the committee, while employing identical WCS criteria, clearly used a superior method.

While opinions on this forum regarding the weight of Principal Nominations bounce around, the opinions of the two sole parties involved do not. Both Congress and the Navy have consistently published their opinions of the law, instructions to implement it, and public notices regarding it without conflict or dissent. They both express that fully qualified MOC Principal Nominations must be appointed.

As I mentioned earlier, two remaining questions loom: what, if anything, Congress will do about the Navy's violation of law and what will the Navy do, if anything, to correct the contemporary errors. At minimum, I would expect the matter to come up for clarification in a near future Armed Services Committee hearing ,and for some resetting of expectations to occur shortly thereafter. That rest may be an affirmation of current published opinions, or it may be a modifications as some prefer. Whichever, it will continue to be the only (mutual) opinion(s) that matters. On the latter question, I am sure the Navy is working on it now, and will in the end do what it can to fix it as best possible under the present circumstance. we may not like what they do, or not do, but it will be the best it can do.

At this point, my Principal Nominate" DS is "waiting" along with many other deserving DS/DD's. Best wishes to them all.
 
WithYou2018 said:
As I mentioned earlier, two remaining questions loom: what, if anything, Congress will do about the Navy's violation of law and what will the Navy do, if anything, to correct the contemporary errors.

At this point, my Principal Nominate" DS is "waiting" along with many other deserving DS/DD's. Best wishes to them all.
Click to expand...

I wish your DS luck, but I think it was shown earlier that the law does not say a principle nomination must be appointed. So I believe the Navy has not violated the law.

I am curious about what a principle nomination letter from a MOC contains (I have not seen one). Does it say the candidate will be apointed or some other language that indicates it's possible for the academy to pass on the candidate?
 
WithYou2018 - I'm rooting for your DS and the others with principal noms. It really saddens me that it has come to this. I can't help but think it was a lack of planning which certainly does not present a good example.

I mentioned a while ago that I know someone who was deferred to the next academic year for appointment. I truly hope that should it come to not having enough openings, then this solution will be presented.
 
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...
Had this thought way back in the beginning of this process (was that a hundred years ago now???):

I love the idea of complete geographical representation of the country at our Service Academies; that is how it should be, that there be a minimum number of mids/cadets appointed from each state, and relative to population.

This can be achieved without the "middleman" of MOCs at all, using USNA/USMA/USAFA etc. current system of evaluating candidates. The ranked national list could still be used as it is now in the form of NWL (USMA) or QA (USNA) for slots over and above the "geographical minimum" and other nom sources such as Presidential, MIA/KIA, ROTC, etc., with the geographical slots selected according to rank within the state, and rank within each district. This would ensure the same representation we get with MOC noms, but without the MOC filter, whatever it may contain. This way, it is the academies themselves that can apply their own criteria directly & select who they want, working within the geographical representation constraint.
 
Just my .02. Any parents who'll be attending April's CVW, you'll have an open Q & A session with admission officers. This might a subject you'd want to have clarified.

Make sure you sit in front so you can hear. If there are no seats up front, sit on the aisle stairs.
 
From the horses mouth...so to speak.

just to kick some more dust...just for sport...read the opinion of the navy and General Accounting Office regarding Principal Nomination appointments. What they write is:

"Offers of appointment are awarded to the best-qualified candidates as evaluated by the Naval Academy Admissions Board within the candidates’ individual nominating categories. About 300 qualified candidates are offered appointments with nominations known as Qualified Alternates to ensure the incoming class meets its authorized strength and profile requirements. Principal nominees (those candidates whose nominating source identifies them by name) who are qualified and children of Medal of Honor winners who are qualified do not compete for appointment."

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

"Senators, representatives, and delegates may submit up to 10
nominees for each student vacancy available to him or her per academy.
They may choose to designate one as a principal nominee.29 If an applicant
receives a principal nomination and is in all other respects qualified, the
academies must admit that applicant, even over an applicant on the same
senator’s, delegate’s, or representative’s nomination list with higher
academic and/or whole person scores. The other nominated names
become alternates for possible admission later in the admissions process."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/239612.pdf

I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point. I would like to see MOC's somehow required to use a similar process as my MOC. As I mentioned earlier, his process, using USNA WCS criteria and scoring, and input from USNA Admissions, and face to face interviews (by military officers, community and business leaders, etc) was in the end a better process than reliance upon USNA Admissions Board (blind) reviews alone.

Folks, I have sat on the entry and promotional oral boards hundreds of time in my career, and most often, what was on paper was not what ended up sitting in front of us. We use to call them paper tigers, the person on paper you would swear would excel throughout their career, but ended up under performing. Nearly all of those that would have never made it absent face to face interviews, but were able to reveal their potential and earn promotion, ended up excelling in their careers. One particular candidate, that later shared his anguish and belief that he had flunked my relentless question onslaught, told me he had walked out certain that he had flunked the oral and began looking for other opportunities. He was shocked when he saw his top score and his promotion orders, and decades later proudly relieved me in command as I retired. So, definitely, a blind review cannot produce the qualities the Navy is seeking. There is no substitute for face to face interviews...
 
WithYou2018 said:
I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point.
Click to expand...
Well said :thumb:
 
WithYou2018 said:
just to kick some more dust...just for sport...read the opinion of the navy and General Accounting Office regarding Principal Nomination appointments. What they write is:

"Offers of appointment are awarded to the best-qualified candidates as evaluated by the Naval Academy Admissions Board within the candidates’ individual nominating categories. About 300 qualified candidates are offered appointments with nominations known as Qualified Alternates to ensure the incoming class meets its authorized strength and profile requirements. Principal nominees (those candidates whose nominating source identifies them by name) who are qualified and children of Medal of Honor winners who are qualified do not compete for appointment."

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

"Senators, representatives, and delegates may submit up to 10
nominees for each student vacancy available to him or her per academy.
They may choose to designate one as a principal nominee.29 If an applicant
receives a principal nomination and is in all other respects qualified, the
academies must admit that applicant, even over an applicant on the same
senator’s, delegate’s, or representative’s nomination list with higher
academic and/or whole person scores. The other nominated names
become alternates for possible admission later in the admissions process."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/239612.pdf

I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point. I would like to see MOC's somehow required to use a similar process as my MOC. As I mentioned earlier, his process, using USNA WCS criteria and scoring, and input from USNA Admissions, and face to face interviews (by military officers, community and business leaders, etc) was in the end a better process than reliance upon USNA Admissions Board (blind) reviews alone.

Folks, I have sat on the entry and promotional oral boards hundreds of time in my career, and most often, what was on paper was not what ended up sitting in front of us. We use to call them paper tigers, the person on paper you would swear would excel throughout their career, but ended up under performing. Nearly all of those that would have never made it absent face to face interviews, but were able to reveal their potential and earn promotion, ended up excelling in their careers. One particular candidate, that later shared his anguish and belief that he had flunked my relentless question onslaught, told me he had walked out certain that he had flunked the oral and began looking for other opportunities. He was shocked when he saw his top score and his promotion orders, and decades later proudly relieved me in command as I retired. So, definitely, a blind review cannot produce the qualities the Navy is seeking. There is no substitute for face to face interviews...
Click to expand...

WithYou2018,
If I were in your position I would be making the same arguments and I sincerely hope that your DS ends up at the USNA. But when you say the Academy is violating "the law", I have to disagree. As I have said before, read the law. That the Academy appears in violation of an oft-repeated, obviously widely accepted and published policy, there is no argument. However, a statement on the USNA website and a GAO paper do not constitute "law". I wish you and all the others who find themselves in this boat the best of luck and hope there is a positive outcome to this very unfortunate situation.
 
d22 said:
Just my .02. Any parents who'll be attending April's CVW, you'll have an open Q & A session with admission officers. This might a subject you'd want to have clarified.

Make sure you sit in front so you can hear. If there are no seats up front, sit on the aisle stairs.
Click to expand...
+1 d22
 
WithYou2018,

Very compelling quotes. I do hope parents at CVW ask Admissions to clarify this!

Also, your points below about 3rd-party involvement (ie. MOC committees) in the process are valid - I didn't think of it that way before. Neither Senator in my state conducted interviews for their candidates for nomination. Congresswoman had a panel do the interviews for her district.

"I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point. I would like to see MOC's somehow required to use a similar process as my MOC. As I mentioned earlier, his process, using USNA WCS criteria and scoring, and input from USNA Admissions, and face to face interviews (by military officers, community and business leaders, etc) was in the end a better process than reliance upon USNA Admissions Board (blind) reviews alone.

Folks, I have sat on the entry and promotional oral boards hundreds of time in my career, and most often, what was on paper was not what ended up sitting in front of us. We use to call them paper tigers, the person on paper you would swear would excel throughout their career, but ended up under performing. Nearly all of those that would have never made it absent face to face interviews, but were able to reveal their potential and earn promotion, ended up excelling in their careers. One particular candidate, that later shared his anguish and belief that he had flunked my relentless question onslaught, told me he had walked out certain that he had flunked the oral and began looking for other opportunities. He was shocked when he saw his top score and his promotion orders, and decades later proudly relieved me in command as I retired. So, definitely, a blind review cannot produce the qualities the Navy is seeking. There is no substitute for face to face interviews..."
 
WithYou2018 said:
I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point. I would like to see MOC's somehow required to use a similar process as my MOC. As I mentioned earlier, his process, using USNA WCS criteria and scoring, and input from USNA Admissions, and face to face interviews (by military officers, community and business leaders, etc) was in the end a better process than reliance upon USNA Admissions Board (blind) reviews alone.

Folks, I have sat on the entry and promotional oral boards hundreds of time in my career, and most often, what was on paper was not what ended up sitting in front of us. We use to call them paper tigers, the person on paper you would swear would excel throughout their career, but ended up under performing. Nearly all of those that would have never made it absent face to face interviews, but were able to reveal their potential and earn promotion, ended up excelling in their careers. One particular candidate, that later shared his anguish and belief that he had flunked my relentless question onslaught, told me he had walked out certain that he had flunked the oral and began looking for other opportunities. He was shocked when he saw his top score and his promotion orders, and decades later proudly relieved me in command as I retired. So, definitely, a blind review cannot produce the qualities the Navy is seeking. There is no substitute for face to face interviews...
Click to expand...

Well said,

WHY MOC BOARDS ARE IMPORTANT

The USNA board doesn't see the candidates only their academic scores and what they have written on their application which could be misleading. How could a blind review board see if the candidate is the well-round student their looking for? I am not saying a candidate is lying on his/her app what I am saying is, just because a candidate made it on the varsity team doesn't mean he/she actually worked hard to get there or did something to stand out from the others on the team. Even clubs could be misleading, a candidate could be a member of a club of 3 and is automaticlly the president of the club because he/she is the senior in the group. There are a lot of schools out there that have a "no cut" policy for various teams and clubs like I mentioned. But a face to face interview with the MOC board is able to weed these candidates out and rank them as they see fit based on the totality of the circumstances. I am not saying that an appointee falls in this category, I am saying that this is why the MOC boards are important and useful. Also the MOC is given strict instructions by Congress on what is looked for in a service academy cadet.

Corrupt MOC Board

Some people say there is a possiblilty of corruption in the boards but with my Senator (I can't speak for others) that possiblity is minimal. My Senator used a board consisting of retired and active military personnel that had no connection to the Senator or his staff. The MOC staff gets these interviewers through requests from the military. So the possiblity of a corrupt board in minimal.

US Code Title 10

But again USNA found a loophole in Title 10. Title 10 may list how a MOC can nominate candidates but it doesn't say that the service academy have to follow what the MOC list. There is no sentence that says or is similar to "A service academy shall appoint the principle nominee in the MOC list."
 
In the section "Why MOC boards are Important" you mention the fact that the USNA admissions board has no other way of knowing what the candidate is like except on paper..... that is what the BGO interview is for .
 
mjm said:
In the section "Why MOC boards are Important" you mention the fact that the USNA admissions board has no other way of knowing what the candidate is like except on paper..... that is what the BGO interview is for .
Click to expand...

Not everyone gets a face to face with their BGO.
 
They are supposed to get an interview with their BGO .. that is one of the checkboxes on the candidate portal that has to be completed.
 
mjm said:
They are supposed to get an interview with their BGO .. that is one of the checkboxes on the candidate portal that has to be completed.
Click to expand...

Yup. But I have read on these boards that there are some candidates that don't get a face-to-face interview. Mostly due to being in rural areas or their local BGO is swamped and they get passed to another BGO in a different area.

Also, what if the candidate just doesn't hit it off with their BGO? A committee is more fair in situations like these. Oh well. That's just my NSHO. :cool:

Edit: clarification - the interview is over the phone.
 
I think phone interviews are the exception, not the rule. My Ds's BGO interview was almost 2 hours at our home where she met the entire family and was able to speak to all of us. My Ds's congressional panel interview lasted about 10 minutes... so IMPO the BGO interview was much more informative for USNA
 
mjm, similar experience here. 15 min. panel interview for MOC, 1.75 hr interview at our home for USNA BGO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top