<p>Hi,</p>
<p>is it possible to get a letter of assurance from the naval academy (class of 2014) and fail to get a nomination from a congress-person, senator or the vp? Do you know of an instance where this has actually happened?</p>
<p>As you can suspect, our son got a loa and is wondering about a nomination....everything else is complete including medically qualified by dodmerv......</p>
<p>ah, yes pasquinel…the great fur trader as i recall.</p>
<p>tell your son congratulations on the letter, i still remember decades ago when i recieved my apointment.</p>
<p>I suppose it is possible that candidates who receive an LOA may in fact not be nominated. However due to the rare nature of these letters, they essentially try to find a way to get you a nomination.</p>
<p>I am still waiting on my son’s LOA, personally I chose to home-school my kids to increase chances…were your kids homeschooled?</p>
<p>hope this helps!</p>
<p>-John (class of 79’ hoah! war eagles!)</p>
<p>
[quote}I am still waiting on my son’s LOA, personally I chose to home-school my kids to increase chances…were your kids homeschooled?[quote]
</p>
<p>Please explain how being home schooled increases your kids chances? I have no opinion one way or another on the homeschooling but am curious as to this opinion. </p>
<p>My Mid attended a large HS, got an LOA, 3 nominations and his appointment in November. He will graduate May 28th and commission in the USMC (Pilot) </p>
<p>I guess I was always under the impression that “where” or “how” you were educated prior to USNA did not matter in your chances for an appointment.</p>
<p>Was wondering the same thing. But I suspect you touched on the answer, Native Texan.</p>
<p>It’s merely an opinion. Nothing less, nothing more. Mine would be that homeschooling makes appointment more challenging, not less. </p>
<p>Can someone enlighten readers?</p>
<p>I have read many threads on this topic …however there is not a crisp answer to this question, that i have been able to find…</p>
<p>(1) is there any special processing or considerations that occurs with loa candidates for moc (congressman/woman) or senators nominations… That does not occur with non-loa candidates?</p>
<p>(2) are loa candidates charged against moc and/or senator nomination allotments…for example: If a congressman has nominated three loa candidates and seven non-loa candidates…are the three loa candidates a zero, one or three nomination charge against the congressman’s ten nomination allotment to the academy?</p>
<p>(3) lastly, does anyone know of a real life example, and just not just specualtion, where a candidate got a loa but not a nomination…and hence the candidate did not get an appointment to the academy…</p>
<p>Thanks in advance with help on the three points above…</p>
<p>Pasquinel…</p>
<p>Relax, an LOA is a commitment from the Academy that they seriously want someone. Just do everything from your end and ensure that all nomination that one is elegible are applied for.</p>
<p>If the LOA is the MOC’s primary nomination, yes it is charged against him. If the MOC submits a competitive slate and the LOA is the most competitive, yes, the LOA will be charged to him. If the LOA is not awarded a primary nomination, he will enter the national pool. Those in the pool are awarded appointments by order of merit. USNA is so frugal in their LOAs that the lowest LOA will be well above the lowest national pool appointment.</p>
<p>Now to the crux of your question. What will happen if the LOA either through extreme competition or devious games by the MOC is not even on the slate of ten nominations? The Supt is allowed 50 appointments at large. An LOA is a prime consideration. Also, typically the VP nom is utilized for an LOA who somehow did not receive another nomination. If all of this fails, remembering that the MOC wants as many from his district as possible, the Academy will research his slate of 10, find someone who, either due to qualifications, medical, other plans, or some other reason, and will not use the nomination, and ask the MOC to substitute the LOA. I think in 100% of situations, at least one of the three eligible MOCs would have a replacement slot. </p>
<p>I know a congressman who plays games and leaves LOA off his slate, even though the slate is composed of less than 10 candidates. Knowing the LOA would receive the primary nomination and that none of the other candidates are national pool quality, by omitting the LOA, he assures two candidates from his district. In this case, they were simply awarded the Supts appointments. Urban legends abound about candidates with LOAs who did not pursue all available nominations and thusly, lost the Academy’s incentive to locate one for them. I could not vouch that they are true or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may be accurate. In any case it’s superfluous. W/ an LOA and W/ a nomination of any kind, principal or otherwise, the candidate will receive a letter of appointment. And assuming one is cleared by DoDMERB and passes the PT.</p>
<p>
Only if the nomination is able to produce an appointment. My statement ensures that it does. So it is not really superfluous.</p>
<p>By definition, it is possible to get an LOA which is controlled by the Academy and not get a Nomination, which is controlled by the individual MOC. Two different programs. One does not control the other.
That being said, I have NEVER heard of it happening. I doubt it has ever happened if you did your part and applied to the MOC’s. I am trying to get an answer from someone with more years in ( the Denver BGO area coodinator) , but so far no other takers. I’m not sure if such a failure is something that they would keep records about, anyway.
The Academy is in very close contact with the MOC’s, before and during the process and the MOC’s like to back a winner. Remember putting your Congressional Discrict number on your PRE- Candidate Application? The MOC was waiting for your letter. They have access to your records. Go to the USNA website. There is a special password access to MOC’s. That is about you.
The LOA is a great but rare endorsement. I guess it would be possible to behave so badly in the MOC interview that the nomination wouldn’t happen, but that would be a GREAT STORY, which would live on without records. Then I would have heard of it! Believe me. I have heard (but not experienced first hand) about DUI’s, marriage, and other behavior screwing things up before and after an Appointment. Never heard of an LOA with no Nomination forthcoming being a show stopper.
So if you continue to do as requested, things should work out well. I do not know of- and have not read anybody who knows anything different including here- a case where it did not go on to a Nomination.
There are several things to stress about. Future Grades, future injuries, possibly the background check. The Nomination should not be on that list (in the scenario you mention). The stories about ‘nominations able to produce an appointment’ are confusing at best, misleading at worst since it has never happened, and don’t contribute anything to understanding.
Good Luck!</p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> is there any special processing or considerations that occurs with loa candidates for moc (congressman/woman) or senators nominations… That does not occur with non-loa candidates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> are loa candidates charged against moc and/or senator nomination allotments…for example: If a congressman has nominated three loa candidates and seven non-loa candidates…are the three loa candidates a zero, one or three nomination charge against the congressman’s ten nomination allotment to the academy?</p>
<p>
[/quote]
it depends. </p>
<p>
no, but anything is possible.
If you do not get an LOA from your local MOCs/ Senators, the USNA will work with you to secure a nomination from another source, PROVIDING you have exhausted EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE TO YOU.</p>
<p>Pasquinel …</p>
<p>Through all of this the answer(s) to your question appear to be:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is it possible. Theoretically,yes.</p></li>
<li><p>Has it ever, to anyone’s knowledge, happened. Never.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Tell you son he’s more likely to get nailed by lightning and end up on the moon …than NOT get an apptmt. if he’s an LOA and his nom, whatever type. The bottomline is that USNA wants him, he wants USNA, the politicians have blessed his candidacy, he’s healthy as a horse, and sufficiently physically fit.</p>
<p>End result: Slam dunk, 100% lock.</p>
<p>Split hairs until the cows come home, ogle the bellybutton, but he’s going to I Day.</p>
<p>Congrats. Stay healthy. Stay good. Stay studying. Stay in shape.</p>
<p>
If I can confuse an alleged BGO, I have been successful. So long as the candidate follows navy2010’s advice and “exhaust(ed) EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE TO YOU”, this is not a problem. To cause every one to exhaust every source was my intent. However, there are candidates and their parents, both LOAs and non-LOAs, who believe all nominations are created equal and that “you only need one”. It is these same individuals every year who, once they get a single nomination, cancel all their other interviews. j-scam, you live in a Navy town, have you had a grad who “knows the system”, whose daughter just got word of her Presidential nomination, cancel the MOC interviews yet? It happens. Every year. Several hundred candidates apply each year for a Presidential nomination. Only 100 can be appointed. The remainder are ineligible for the national pool. They darn well better have another nomination. LOA or not. Same for ROTC. Only 20 appointments every year. The remainder ineligible for the national pool. Again, they also darn well better have another nomination. </p>
<p>LOAs , just like everyone else, must have a nomination from which a legal appointment may be granted. We know some MOCs make things more difficult for the CGO by attempting to unnecessarily ‘spread the wealth’ and limiting nominations. My attempt is only to not have the candidates do the same by colluding with the MOCs but to, like navy 2010 states, “exhaust EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE”. Additionally, I think, as a taxpaying voting citizen, I would have a problem if my duly elected local congressman, elected to represent my district, did not offer a nomination to my daughter just because a Senator listed her as an alternate on a much more competitive slate. </p>
<p>jscam, perhaps when you become a little more familiar with the system, you won’t be so quick to criticize.</p>
<p>For a candidate with a LOA - “you only need one” is an absolutely 100% true statement, contrary to what mombee wants you to believe. </p>
<p>One nomination. </p>
<p>Not 2, not 3, not 4. </p>
<p>Only 1.</p>
<p>“mombee” - Stop putting forward vague rare unnecessary arguments that theoretically could happen but never have or never will.</p>
<p>Post your credentials instead of slamming others who you “allege” to be BGOs. </p>
<p>What are you “alleged” to be? What makes your advice always right,while everyone else is always wrong?</p>
<p>Are you a BGO? Are you a grad? </p>
<p>Are you USNA69, a banned forum member returning under a new name in violation of College Confidential rules?</p>
<p>Actually a LOA doesn’t need even a single nomination. And in essence, an LOA without a nomination which can legally result in an appointment, is the same as not having a nomination. They are eligible ONLY for the superintendent’s slate of 50 appointments. I personally cannot be a part of any advice that would suggest a candidate test the system by not “exhaust(ing) EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE” when perhaps their competition is for that last available Superintendent’s appointment, a position with which they are competing with a blue chip All American football recruit. </p>
<p>The system is impeccable. Read the catalog. “exhaust EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE”. Then sit back and wait. It is only when candidates and their parents start reading forums such as this and try to start ‘thinking’, based on incomplete facts, that problems arise. There is a very definite reason that ALL candidates, LOAs included, “exhaust EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE”. CGO can then, in good faith, go back to a MOC and ask them to replace a nominee whom they are positive will not be able to use the nomination. Do you think they would ask this if the candidate had not even bothered to pursue the nomination initially?</p>
<p>This sort of thing happens every year. I am simply attempting to ensure that it does not happen this year to those who read this forum.</p>
<p>Additionally:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To state that on one only needs a JROTC nomination, a nomination from which only 20 total appointments may be granted and the candidate is not further eligible for the national pool, and no other is both dangerous and irresponsible. It is comments such as this which causes me to post.</p>
<p>Pick a side. </p>
<p>Either…</p>
<p>…the LOA + any legal nomination equals appointment.</p>
<p>…the LOA + any legal nomination does not equal appointment, which makes the LOA worthless.</p>
<p>It’s that simple, stop trying to confuse everyone with implausible far-fetched scenarios.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^
Nope. No sides to pick. Just pointing out the reasons that the “only one nomination” requirement must be accompanied by the other USNA requirement which navy 2010 made, to “exhaust EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE”, and that the second can be actually as important, if not more so, than the first.</p>
<p>Our two positions are not that diametrically opposed. And my scenarios are not far-fetched if the candidate ceases to attempt another nomination once, no matter what it is, he receives his first. I have personally witnessed variations of several of them.</p>
<p>To state it another way, by not heeding the USNA requirement to pursue all nomination sources to which one is eligible, a candidate might perhaps place an undue burden on the CGO which they might be less likely to want to accept.</p>
<p>Another post that begins with a good question, gets some good responses, then some confusing ones (not confusing to a parent-of-a-Grad, Grad, or BGO but for the poor soul that posted a legit question).
Any attempt to relieve the confusion resulted in volumes written that are only more confusing. Mombee raised the threat that you can get an LOA and then not get the Nomination / appointment. EVERYbody says, including the VERY NEXT post, it is technically possible but has never happened to get an LOA and not get a nomination/appointment. Mombee THEN (and by then, I mean finally) says you don’t even NEED a nomination to get an appointment, which, at last supports what everyone else has said.
So, an LOA is a great thing, congrats if you have one!
Mombee SEEMS to be a very well read, very informed, very opinionated person. It is just odd that the posts don’t help anybody and confuse the posters when excellent replies have already been posted. Why have knowledge and then use that knowledge submit posts that do not help, confusing the new people (and not confusing a BGO, WHICH IS SOME SORT OF GOAL for him/her) and frustrating other people trying to help? Why?
P asked a question… AND THE VERY NEXT POST, Navy23 posted the correct answer! This was asked and answered correctly on 25NOV09. 2 weeks later we are still trying to be clear. Why? Mombee had to make it look like there was a risk and that he/she was smarter. Why post if the answer has been submitted?</p>
<p>“If I can confuse… I have been successful” says it all. A CLASSIC MOMBEE QUOTE. It should be required that he/she post his own words before every diatribe.</p>
<p>Any criticism was not with the system, it was with Mombee. While technically his/her posts have correct elements, the way they are put together lead you to the wrong conclusion and do NOT add to the knowledge base. They only seem to go against the suggestions of others, EVEN WHEN THOSE POSTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE CORRECT.</p>
<p>I hope anyone reading this can see that, like every forum, you have a range of posters and experience levels. Here it appears we have a third element. Someone with a high knowledge level whose goal, AS THEY HAVE CLEARLY STATED IN THEIR OWN WORDS, is to confuse.
Good Luck</p>
<p>It is a confusing subject, no doubt. I think you are picking and choosing, attempting at further confusion. Why, I have no idea. My sole reason for posting on this subject was that many many candidates have asked themselves the question; “Since I have an LOA AND an nomination, do I need to pursue further nominations.” If I have answered the question of “why?”, great. If not, my desire is to plant a great enough seed of confusion that they don’t dare not to “exhaust” all opportunities. </p>
<p>I am sure that we are all here to help candidates. While this poster’s question was indeed answered early on, the thread remains for posterity. Hopefully next year when the early August LOA reads this thread, knowing that he will indeed receive his JROTC nomination, will not cease to attempt all other avenues of appointment.</p>
<p>I can add nothing further. Thanks for your time.</p>
<p>You have added nothing but confusion, which YOU STATED AS YOUR GOAL. Mission acomplished.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the answer to that question is “no.” </p>
<p>A LOA + any nomination = guaranteed appointment as stated in the LOA.</p>
<p>Period.</p>