The "Politics" of Nomination... (A good read)

Typical USAToday short story.

Yes, there has historically been corruption in the process. My uncle tried for USMA from Brooklyn NY in the late 1930s and was told that his parents (my grandparents) had to make a sizable donation to the party if they wanted this to happen that they did not have the ability to do so thus he ended up going through OCS.
Fast forward to the 70's and beyond. As a candidate in the 70's and a BGO since the early 90's, I have not heard even a whisper of anything like that.
I know of a number of MOCs who were known to be corrupt and some who were convicted but they all did SA nominations honestly. I saw this by being in the middle of the process and seeing how the sausage gets made.
Actually, I've known people who were longtime supporters and friends of a congressman who had donations refused/returned when their child applied for a nomination.
I certainly can't categorically state that there is no corruption now but if there is, I do not think it is widespread. . . even in areas with lots of oher corruption.
 
I attended an academy admissions event recently and heard the staff of one MOC make an interesting argument in favor of the nominations process. Their essential point was that the cost of educating a student at a SA is roughly $425,000, and that the MOC is effectively responsible for assuring that their budget items ($400k x 5 appointees per SA) are allocated to those who will best serve the needs of their respective service and who best represent the constituencies that MOC serves.

An optimist would say that actually caring about who gets nominated displays is a core responsibility of an elected official and is a sign our government is highly functioning. A cynic might look at the potential for horse-trading as a sign of politics creeping in
 
Without even reading the article, I have long thought that the entire Congressional Nomination requirement is a relic that should be junked.

Have always considered that it was a way for the offspring of the well connected to get into service academies.


Even looking back as (recently) as WW2, famous people and those from well-to-do families went into the service as commissioned officers, versus the sons of the poor and middle class, enlisted at the lowest rank.

It WAS a more patriotic time, so not intending to denigrate anyone's service, but one only need to look at the big Hollywood actors of the time who entered the military - the vast majority did so as commissioned officers.
 
ALF648 said:
I attended an academy admissions event recently and heard the staff of one MOC make an interesting argument in favor of the nominations process. Their essential point was that the cost of educating a student at a SA is roughly $425,000, and that the MOC is effectively responsible for assuring that their budget items ($400k x 5 appointees per SA) are allocated to those who will best serve the needs of their respective service and who best represent the constituencies that MOC serves.

An optimist would say that actually caring about who gets nominated displays is a core responsibility of an elected official and is a sign our government is highly functioning. A cynic might look at the potential for horse-trading as a sign of politics creeping in
Click to expand...
And a realist would recognize that the rep/sen has almost nothing to do with the process - they almost all use committees to interview the candidates and create the slate.
 
Korab said:
And a realist would recognize that the rep/sen has almost nothing to do with the process - they almost all use committees to interview the candidates and create the slate.
Click to expand...

And IMHO, if you look at the "members" of a given MOC's panel, who comprises this "neutral" panel? I know statewide and locally in our area, other politicians (city council, commission, boards) with past military time, party faithful, and senior retired military members close to the MOC comprise the "Committees". As for the rep/sen having "nothing to do with the process" I am not naïve enough to believe that. Way too many "legacy" candidates get appointed over ones with identical stats but no connections. But it is the system that our children have to navigate within and learn how to function in a quasi political environment. And make no mistake the military IS a quasi-political organization, not republican v democrat, but you take care of mine I will take of yours sort of organization.
 
It's not a perfect system, but what is? I'm not a big fan of the principal nomination concept. For example, our MOCs coordinate so a candidate only gets one nomination between the Rep and 2 Sens. Their point is that you only need one nomination. The problem is, one of the Sens does a principal nomination. So if you are one of the non-principal nominees for him, and he only has one vacancy, you are basically SOL without an LOA. I am not saying that patronage is the reason why he gives a principal nomination, but there are no rules on this, and that is a problem. I know many people disagree with me and that is fine. I just wish all nominations were competitive and then let the SAs figure out the best candidates.
 
Impulsive said:
And IMHO, if you look at the "members" of a given MOC's panel, who comprises this "neutral" panel? I know statewide and locally in our area, other politicians (city council, commission, boards) with past military time, party faithful, and senior retired military members close to the MOC comprise the "Committees". As for the rep/sen having "nothing to do with the process" I am not naïve enough to believe that. Way too many "legacy" candidates get appointed over ones with identical stats but no connections.
Click to expand...
I couldn't object more to your assertions!
I've served on Senatorial and Congressional boards for more than 10 years now in a state that has a significant reputation for politics creeping into many things. I am a supporter of the OPPOSITE PARTY of my Senators and my current MOC and am not a friend of either of the Senators nor their staffs. My MOC is a USNA grad and we have spoken briefly socially. When it comes to my Senators, I actually despise one of them and contributed to the campaign of his last opponent. Most of the selection committee members that I've served with are fellow BGOs, ALOs, a smattering of Service Academy parents and various veterans. NONE that I know of are "political" in this way AT ALL. No "party faithful" on the interview teams although the admin staffers tend to be paid staffers of the MOC and probably of their party.

My kid is probably one of the legacy types that you're accusing of getting in through influence. He was just in the top five in his high school class while playing 3 varsity sports (all county in one) and multiple team captaincies as well as captain of the debating and academic decathlon teams while also working at a local pizza joint on weekends for spending money. Graduated from distinction from just about every Navy school since USNA and just early promoted to O4. Yeah, he probably got in from my influence.

It's interesting that you "know" that some candidates get in over others with "identical stats" but no connections because I have no idea how I could make a claim like that and I am someone who actually SEES the applications/materials. Unless you are actually SEEING the materials, you're listening to one side of what parents or kids tell you, you certainly don't see the interviewers score sheets.

I'll just stop here as I don't want to rile myself up even further.
 
I wonder why an MOC that uses the principal method would actually state that? Why would they want that out there? All of our experiences do not include knowing that that info from the MOC (DS last year was told he was after inquiring about something unrelated from admissions...so admissions told him he was a senator principal nom). They don’t offer it. Not on their website what method they use.

It seems to me that it would please more constituents to not release that they use a principal method (whether they do or it). I wonder why they would release that they use a principal nom method [emoji848].
 
OldRetSWO said:
I couldn't object more to your assertions!
I've served on Senatorial and Congressional boards for more than 10 years now in a state that has a significant reputation for politics creeping into many things. I am a supporter of the OPPOSITE PARTY of my Senators and my current MOC and am not a friend of either of the Senators nor their staffs. My MOC is a USNA grad and we have spoken briefly socially. When it comes to my Senators, I actually despise one of them and contributed to the campaign of his last opponent. Most of the selection committee members that I've served with are fellow BGOs, ALOs, a smattering of Service Academy parents and various veterans. NONE that I know of are "political" in this way AT ALL. No "party faithful" on the interview teams although the admin staffers tend to be paid staffers of the MOC and probably of their party.

My kid is probably one of the legacy types that you're accusing of getting in through influence. He was just in the top five in his high school class while playing 3 varsity sports (all county in one) and multiple team captaincies as well as captain of the debating and academic decathlon teams while also working at a local pizza joint on weekends for spending money. Graduated from distinction from just about every Navy school since USNA and just early promoted to O4. Yeah, he probably got in from my influence.

It's interesting that you "know" that some candidates get in over others with "identical stats" but no connections because I have no idea how I could make a claim like that and I am someone who actually SEES the applications/materials. Unless you are actually SEEING the materials, you're listening to one side of what parents or kids tell you, you certainly don't see the interviewers score sheets.

I'll just stop here as I don't want to rile myself up even further.
Click to expand...

There would have to be a lot of colluding among a lot of people to do this “dirty”. I don’t buy it either.

DS (currently Mid) had an interview with 16 panel members (I think that may be a record [emoji23]). Sat in the middle on a bare chair, the room lined on 3 sides with panel members (that’s a whole other discussion, but he was my hero after that!!). Point is, I can’t imagine all 16 buying into any dirty political nomination. Personally I have comfort in them using a committee/panel. And am grateful for panel members dedication and time. It must be a very daunting task.
 
When I was nominated (in the early 1980s), my parents were actively working to unseat the MOC from whom I ultimately received a nom (and the MOC was defeated, so a double win!)

Years ago, I sat on an MOC nominating committee. Our biggest annoyance was that the MOC required that every candidate receive an interview, including those who were totally unqualified. Never saw or felt any influence from the MOC to select anyone and we NEVER even thought about political affiliations/contributions of parents.

I've also watched the process for more than 20 years as a BGO with numerous MOCs from both parties. I must say that 95% of the time, the folks I believe deserve a nom get one. Every once in a while, someone who didn't impress me gets a nom or someone I thought should get one doesn't. However, the MOC committees see way more information than I do, they actually see all of the other candidates, they must ensure diversity in terms of geography and schools, and that candidate may have had a terrible day with me and a great day with them. I've never seen any evidence of political influence, but am also not naïve enough to think it's impossible.

The above said, I don't see any reason for the nomination system. Clearly, Congress likes it. But why should we assume the judgment of MOCs is any better than the judgment of the SAs themselves in deciding on the best applicants? And in areas such as mine, some candidates are out of the running simply b/c they can't get a nom because there are FAR too many qualified candidates than nom slots. IMHO, that's unfair.

But Congress dictates the nom system and they have zero incentive to make it go away.:rolleyes:
 
Our son interviewed with both Senator panels and his local MOC. I am politically only sort of a fan of one of the senators. I am supporting a candidate to unseat our local MOC. I didn't go to the interviews, sat in the car. Our son had 3 different styles of interviews and he was wholly impressed with the panels, the variety of panelist, and the seriousness with with they took the process.

The panel has no idea that our son would be the 4th generation on my dad's side to attend and graduate USNA. That's not a box you can check on the application. So the idea of 'legacy' for him didn't come up. He mentioned in one essay that he learned about USNA from his grandfather who was alumnus. But that was it. He wanted to earn an appointment on his own merit.

This process is so complex, and looks into every possible aspect of a candidate. I am impressed with the kids that he is competing with. I have met some of them and their parents and the resumes, athletics, professionalism and maturity of these soon to be adults is reassuring to me. It also has me realizing that he still has a chance of not getting in, that is the reality of a principal to USNA. And so we wait.

Our son sought every nomination source he could, as he was advised. He was stunned to receive 3 nominations to USNA, one a principal, and one to USMMA and one to USMA. The local MOC gave him one to USNA, USMA and USMMA. That doesn't mean there was favoritism or politics. I won't list his accomplishments but he is a very strong candidate. The interview he earned a principal nomination in was the most difficult interview of his life, and he competes in interview! The panel had alumnus, parents, active duty, someone from another academy, FFO's, ALO's, and he wasn't sure who else. They were not playing around. He didn't meet the MOC's in any part of the process.

During a mock interview, a panelist told him she had been doing this for 20 years and he was the best prepared academy candidate she had interviewed. His FFO said he left a 'lasting impression' on him.
It is possible that some of these candidates actually impress the panels enough to warrant a nomination to multiple academies. And it is entirely possible that a candidate could be very qualified and earn multiple nominations without 'taking a nomination slot from someone else'. Not every MOC has candidates qualified to earn a nomination in every cycle. Not every district has a kid who wants to attend!

I for one will trust the process, the men and women who graduate and go on to serve sure do a helluva job. I think the process selects those that are suited for it, and the time at the academy finds those that really weren't suited and they find a different path.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry if I have "riled up" some members. I was just stating my personal experience and reading over a lot of the profiles on these forums. And I am sorry if it works out that there are a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Academy appointments that are talked about on here, but as I said earlier, there are a ton of very highly qualified candidates who get passed over "in order to fill our diversity in a class". This is fine by all standards if those appointed are also very highly qualified candidates. But no one here will tell me that being a "Legacy" candidate does not help with any academy! I know personally three members (one each on each of the MOC Panels) and to a one they say they try and keep politics out of the process, but that it sometimes occurs where a candidate's parents or grandparents will know one or two of the retired or former military members of the panel. And I know the "system", I experienced it while serving that if you have a "Hook" it gets you places in the military. If you have a "Godfather" you can get assignments and promotions to certain fields easier than if you are "joe no body". I am not naïve enough (I watched some of it last year) to think that if mom or dad is a retired O-6 and knows three friends at the Academy son/daughter wants to attend, that those "friends" don't watch out for the application and try and help out. I advanced VERY rapidly, got almost every assignment I desired, and I truly believe it was because I had a senior officer (who let me know he was watching my career with interest) who thought I had something special and looked after me. The ONLY reason I left the service was the opportunity to advance my career in a field I came to be passionate about. There were still quasi political games (even in Civil Service) and it paid to know people higher up, and it is that way in life.

And just for info, the three young people I mentioned earlier were as qualified as anyone, but knew no one in the military, had no relatives who were vets or AD, and two didn't make it. If you look at members here, I am sure they are skewed because non military people don't know about these forums as readily as military people so I admit I could be wrong, but I see a whole lot of senior military people whose family members seem to have a higher rate of acceptance than a no body who applies.

I am not accusing anyone of "playing the system" or "applying undo influence", the military is all about performance and networking, and I am sure those candidates that come from military families do very well, having grown up in that environment, and to a one deserve to be where they are. My only point was to just say IMHO, there is sometimes outside influences in the selection processes and in the military world in general that sometimes gives one candidate a slight edge over another with exactly the same qualifications. There is not much difference in getting a promotion for Civil Service, Military, or Civilian positions, someone has to pick you out of the pack, or ask for you, so our sons and daughters have to live and work in that environment just as we did.

I am sorry for rambling, and I do not mean to irritate anyone, maybe certain MOC panels and Academies have safeguards or policies to limit outside influence, but my personal knowledge (although limited) tells me otherwise. Again, Sorry, but it is just my opinion, I am not saying anyone on these forums has done, is doing, or will do anything not above board and those candidates that get appointed deserve those appointments.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't rile me up. Politics, favoritism, connections, influence, parents "pulling strings", etc. undoubtedly plays a factor in nearly all facets of a kid's life beginning roughly with 3rd or 4th grade sports/music/dance/etc. Definitely a factor in sports, university admissions, graduate school opportunities, and jobs. Why would anybody think the SA process is immune to this?
 
I wasn't riled. Just sharing our experience. Neither myself nor my husband served. Both of us in hindsight wish we had.
 
I have to admit I was worried about this also. We are in a blue state and we are a conservative republican family. I worried about all things from will he be denied based on his voter registration to do they only take people who have donated to them. I am happy to report he did receive 2 nominations :)
 
OldRetSWO said:
Typical USAToday short story.

Yes, there has historically been corruption in the process. My uncle tried for USMA from Brooklyn NY in the late 1930s and was told that his parents (my grandparents) had to make a sizable donation to the party if they wanted this to happen that they did not have the ability to do so thus he ended up going through OCS.
Fast forward to the 70's and beyond. As a candidate in the 70's and a BGO since the early 90's, I have not heard even a whisper of anything like that.
I know of a number of MOCs who were known to be corrupt and some who were convicted but they all did SA nominations honestly. I saw this by being in the middle of the process and seeing how the sausage gets made.
Actually, I've known people who were longtime supporters and friends of a congressman who had donations refused/returned when their child applied for a nomination.
I certainly can't categorically state that there is no corruption now but if there is, I do not think it is widespread. . . even in areas with lots of oher corruption.
Click to expand...



1930 and 1940 are different than 2019 ... I don't buy it.. Always politics in everything but only a small portion.
 
There is no perfect process and anytime you have people involved, there will be preferences. That includes both military and civilians colleges. Civilians colleges are looking for diversity and maybe overlooking kids who would be more than qualified and yet dont get in because they dont fit the right color, religion, ethnicity or whatever. My guess is that colleges work on percentages. They want 5% this, and 10 percent that until they reach their 100% number. The fact that some in congress maybe awarding political contributers or political allies or helping military families is not impossible to believe. On side note, there was another article that recently stated that there is a trend in our military for those who enlist and i would imagine that those who commission to come from military families. It would then be logical to believe that this would also be a trend in the academies. Children of academy alumni would tend to be a large percentages of those who apply.
 
My DD found the process to be fair. We are not a military family. The MOC panel was a fair representation of the community and knowledgeable about SA requirements. Our MOC uses the principal nomination and sees it as his responsibility (through the committee) to identify the most qualified candidates who will represent our state. I think it is a good system. The most qualified candidates look good on paper and a face to face panel interview provides additional insight. Nominees still have to pass the SA's admissions requirements.

It's a symbiotic relationship. From the last line of the article, "And the academies have a vested interest, too: "What they want is buy-in from members of Congress. They want appropriations to the academies. They want Congress to have a stake in the process."
 
We can agree to disagree on the merits of the principle nom. I can not think of one situation where the MOC and/or their committee would make a “better” selection than the Academy. My experience with MOC committees is they are comprised of well-meaning volunteers some of whom attended Academies a long time ago. Much has changed since the Korean conflict and yet that veteran remains on our MOCs committee. Of course there are also recent grads and others that are more familiar with the current Academy and military. That said, the Admissions committee is the proper place for the selection of Cadets utilizing the advice and consent of the MOC instead of appointing the MOCs principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top