Still in the game

I would think affected MOCs could clear this up quickly with a short phone call to the academy.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
1984USNA said:
I would think affected MOCs could clear this up quickly with a short phone call to the academy.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
Click to expand...
+1 1984USNA.

808Dad, not sure if it's possible, but it seems you somehow need to be able to communicate with the MOC directly, not just the MOC SA rep, because this pertains to the MOC's duty/right/privilege under the law.

I hope you can get a satisfactory response when you go to the office in person.
 
d22 said:
Someone correct me if I'm off base here, but the reality of college (and pro) athletics is all about $$$. And who's to blame...we are, John Q. Public. We support the programs by purchasing tickets, food at concessions, your favorite athlete's jersey, video games, etc.

A coaches job is to win, and in order to do so he/she must recruit the best players. That being said a coach will not waste scholarship money on a player whom he feels will flunk out, either.

Until we stop supporting our favorite sport teams (Go Padres and Chargers,) then college and pro sports is here to stay.
Click to expand...

That may be true for a civilian college - wasting scholarship money. But what do they dangle in front of a kid being recruited for an SA? Certainly not a scholarship to defray costs.
As far as supporting teams go - the only team shirts I have ever bought are Red Sox t-shirts - because well, they are the Red Sox. Aside from that, we do not support the ridiculousness that is pro and college sports. But I agree with you, that John Q Public is partly to blame.
 
I dreaded going to the mailbox for so long. Now it's not near as exciting! Call me crazy, but I miss being on the island!

GOOD LUCK OUT THERE TODAY! It certainly sounds like things have gotten interesting!
 
808DAD said:
This is what I got from US Code Title 10,Subtitle B,Part III,Chapter 403, § 4342:

Each Senator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress, including the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, is entitled to nominate 10 persons for each vacancy that is available to him under this section. 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.

....No where in the section did it say that the board can go against the MOC's ranked list. No where in the whole law says that the board can go against the MOC's list.
Click to expand...

I think the spirit of the law is clear and hope that those with principal noms but put on the wait list get a positive resolution to this issue. I am, however, trying to understand if it looks like Admissions is acting outside the mandate. The Naval Academy related information is in Title 10, Part III, Chapter 603. Same as above for nominations. It doesn't actually state explicitly here that a 'principal' nominee must be appointed. It only says 'qualified nominees not selected for appointment under this subsection shall be considered qualified alternates.....'

So to me the question is - What does 'qualified' mean? Going back to Title 10, I found this in § 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission
(a) Each candidate for admission to the Naval Academy—
…..(2) shall be examined according to such regulations as the Secretary of the Navy prescribes………

That seems very generic to me and appears to give USNA wide latitude for who is deemed 'qualified' since I would think that the Admissions board is a proxy for Sec. Nav. in this instance.

I can't help but think - what's the point of the different nominating methods if ultimately Admissions can effectively re-rank the slate by an opaque 'qualification' criteria such that a MOCs determination is cast aside?

Anyway, just a few tidbits to chew on....

Best of luck to Withyou, 808Dad and others sorting through this quagmire. Very sorry about all of the stress I'm sure this has caused.
 
Unfortunately, I think they are within the confines of the law on this one. Also, know this isn't the first year this issue with principal nominees has happened. I scrolled to posts from 4-13 to see how things were last year at this time, and one principle nominee spoke about it being his/her 2nd year with a principal nominee and receiving the TWE. They had no reason to believe they were not 3Q.

May peace come to all be it in whatever form God has planned for you, sooner than later.

I know checking the mail yesterday with out an answer sent me into my first tailspin. We just want to plan and start to wrap our heads around what the next couple months hold for our oldest and first kid out the door.

hopefull for all
 
famof8 said:
I dreaded going to the mailbox for so long. Now it's not near as exciting! Call me crazy, but I miss being on the island!

GOOD LUCK OUT THERE TODAY! It certainly sounds like things have gotten interesting!
Click to expand...


I completely understand about the mailbox! It is so boring now - all the fun is gone.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Can you ever in any way shape or form be appointed WITHOUT a nomination?

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Even if you have a LOA, you still need a nomination. They can however offer you NAPS.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Nothing in the mailbox again today. Leaving for vacation tomorrow night. If we don't hear by then will be the 21st before we know.
 
Prepswimmom said:
Can you ever in any way shape or form be appointed WITHOUT a nomination?

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
Click to expand...

It looks like it's possible:
§ 6954. (d) The Superintendent of the Naval Academy may nominate for appointment each year 50 persons from the country at large. Persons nominated under this paragraph may not displace any appointment authorized under paragraphs (2) through (9) of subsection (a) and may not cause the total strength of midshipmen at the Naval Academy to exceed the authorized number.

Paragraphs 2 - 9 referenced here are nominations from VP, MOCs, Puerto Rico, etc. This is in addition to the 150 Sec. Nav. appointments from the Qualified Alternates (nominated by a MOC but not appointed).

I'm just reading Title 10 and am not a lawyer so....
 
JShawshank said:
It looks like it's possible:
§ 6954. (d) The Superintendent of the Naval Academy may nominate for appointment each year 50 persons from the country at large. Persons nominated under this paragraph may not displace any appointment authorized under paragraphs (2) through (9) of subsection (a) and may not cause the total strength of midshipmen at the Naval Academy to exceed the authorized number.

Paragraphs 2 - 9 referenced here are nominations from VP, MOCs, Puerto Rico, etc. This is in addition to the 150 Sec. Nav. appointments from the Qualified Alternates (nominated by a MOC but not appointed).

I'm just reading Title 10 and am not a lawyer so....
Click to expand...

No. The supe has nominating power to use in case a candidate they want does not receive a nom. Those numbers are subject to the quoted section.
 
2018midmom said:
No. The supe has nominating power to use in case a candidate they want does not receive a nom. Those numbers are subject to the quoted section.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the "No" is in reference to in your post? We said the same thing - SecNav can select 50 people who weren't nominated by VP, MOC or other source.

Am I missing something?
 
JShawshank said:
Not sure what the "No" is in reference to in your post? We said the same thing - SecNav can select 50 people who weren't nominated by VP, MOC or other source.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You're missing the fact that the Supe is the one that nominates people. They are still getting a nomination, and thus can legally attend. It's still impossible to attend the academy without a nomination.
 
JShawshank said:
Not sure what the "No" is in reference to in your post? We said the same thing - SecNav can select 50 people who weren't nominated by VP, MOC or other source.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

actually it say that he may nominate them.
 
JShawshank said:
Not sure what the "No" is in reference to in your post? We said the same thing - SecNav can select 50 people who weren't nominated by VP, MOC or other source.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

+1, confused as well :confused:
 
The answer to appointment without nom is no. Must have nom. The supe can nom but doesn't have to and in some circumstances as described cannot. If a desired candidate does not have a nom supe can nominate.
 
2018midmom said:
The answer to appointment without nom is no. Must have nom. The supe can nom but doesn't have to and in some circumstances as described cannot. If a desired candidate does not have a nom supe can nominate.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I should have clarified in my original post as I thought the nom vs appointment thing might come up. Yes, technically you get a nom from SecNav but, from my understanding, it's not like you are notified that you have a nom and then wait for appt. like a MOC nom. SecNav nom = appt, IMHO. :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top