<p>Thus endeth the reading of the word. Make that word(s)! :(</p>
<p>And for the next 2.5 years, we’ll be doing a careful, knit-picking analysis of another similar issue that a great many candidates (and others) have pondered while gazing at our naval navels: </p>
<p>During plebe summer, how many Midshipmen are required to dance on the head of a pin before they are allowed to eat?</p>
<p>And the bonus quibble quandary will be: If so ordered, could God sail a YP thru the eye of a needle? </p>
<p>Answers MUST be so precise and verbose, no mere human candidate could possibly grasp their complexity, nuance, and whatever. Good luck, CC mates! </p>
<p>And remember, do your own work as we’re all on our honor! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"But Whistle Pig, we’ve not yet queried the question of ‘What is honor and how long are we bound by it?’ " :eek:</p>
<p>jscam, your last post was quite lengthy in describing your inability to comprehend my position. However, your position is not so clear. As an alleged BGO, could you enlighten us please as to your official opinion as to whether Luigi is correct, that once an LOA is received that it is no longer necessary to adhere to the USNA mandate to attempt all nominations to which they are eligible?</p>
<p>Call me confused but from what I have read, I believe that mombee is misunderstanding jscam…</p>
<p>mombee - jscam and luigi are NOT stating that a candidate should not apply to all nomination sources upon receipt of an LOA. Rather, they are stating that once a candidate receives an LOA and a nomination, they are guaranteed an appointment so they no longer need to pursue any other nominations (unless, of course, they are applying to more than one service academy).</p>
<p>Thus -</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What Luigi59 posted is correct.</p>
<p>Case in point - I received a LOA and just this past week, I received a nomination from my congressman. I called the two senators to let them know (as they had yet to review the files for the candidates) so that in case I was selected on their slate, I wouldn’t take up a spot for some other candidate. My LOA + my nomination = guaranteed appointment.</p>
<p>The other 2 candidates from my school who also received LOAs from the Military Academy also received nominations and they did the same thing - We are all guaranteed appointments due to our LOAs and nominations. None of us are pursuing any other nominations.</p>
<p>I would like to thank you for everyone who particiated on this email thread…I have found all of your comments enlightening and extremely helpful…</p>
<p>I will post our outcome, for the historical archive…our son received his LOA at the USNA mid-November…he did interview with his Congressman and two Senators…he also applied for a nom, and received a receipt confirmation, from the VP…so he has applied to all nom sources that he could…</p>
<p>Like others, and is now the waiting period…</p>
<p>But sincerely, thanks to all who participated on the email thread…your replies were very informative…</p>
jscam, this comment is towards the end of a rant about my being confusing. Perhaps if I could be so presumptuous as to suggest that perhaps if you read the threads more carefully, things might not be so confusing. Pasquinel did, indeed ask a question and Navy23 did, in fact, answer it on Post #2. However, on Post #5, the OP had further questions: </p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote=Pasquinel</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?</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 speculation, where a candidate got a loa but not a nomination…and hence the candidate did not get an appointment to the academy…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was my comment to this which Whistle Pig declared superfluous almost a week later. Perhaps you should ask him “Why?”</p>
<p>In my opinion, Whistle Pig was attempting to rear the age old “You only need one nomination”, of which “All nominations are the same” is it’s first derivative. To anyone knowledgeable and experienced in the admissions process, these comments are akin to someone dragging their fingernails across a chalk board. Both have been born and bred on forums such as this and have absolutely no factual backing. I have listed many exceptions.</p>
<p>Candidates, MOCs, and the Admissions Office all work at cross purposes. Candidates only want to do what is absolutely necessary. MOCs, sometimes detrimental to the candidate, and most often of no positive value whatsoever, attempt to place as many nominations before the Academy as possible. Admissions attempts to sort through it all and offer appointments to the absolute best qualified of the group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously, of the thousand or so boards, do you really think you would have heard of every LOA who screws up an interview? MOCs play games. They, knowing that the Academy will ‘find’ an appointment, omit them from the slate. Do you honestly think the MOC will admit to playing games? Nope. They manufacture a reason and since these candidates usually have impeccable credentials, it is because of a bad interview. I can PM you a handful if you wish. And none of them are a “GREAT STORY”. Mostly a pathetic attempt at an inconsequential rationalization.</p>
<p>And we could start another entire thread about the logic behind the idea that a LOA no longer needs to pursue all eligible nominations simply because we have never heard of a case where the Academy failed to give them an appointment. The base here is very small, a few candidates, a BGO or two, but mostly parents combined with a very secretive Admissions process whose sole response to any questions along these lines is to “apply to all sources eligible”.</p>
<p>What happens between February when the files all close out and May when the appointments are announced? Admissions runs the thousands of scenarios to match the best combination of candidates to all available nominations, LOAs included. They ask that EVERY candidate apply to EVERY nomination source available. This makes their job much less difficult. Nowhere do they state that one should cease this process once they obtain a single nomination. And nowhere will we ever find the examples of what happens to those who fail to follow their instructions. Before a LOA voluntarily removes himself from the running with any nomination source, if is folly, pure and simple, if he does not first have permission from the CGO.</p>
<p>leoti, I don’t think I misunderstood them at all. And if you somehow think that what they stated somehow endorses your actions to voluntarily remove yourself from your two Senator’ nomination process, I know that I did not misunderstand them. </p>
<p>Luigi is only partially correct. Yes, you require only a single nomination. However, that nomination must be one to which an appointment can be made. Unfortunately, as a candidate you do not know which one that might be, or if more than one, which one the Academy wishes to charge you against. The Academy requires you to pursue all nominations to which you are eligible. No where have you received any guidance to the contrary. Until you do, you should proceed as normal. OBTW, it is okay to call them and ask.</p>
<p>And leoti, perhaps you should wait until at least you have an appointment in hand before you claim ‘expert’ status. Also, I cannot speak for your WP friends. Their process is slightly different.</p>
<p>Two separate issues but interrelated so perhaps I can combine them. As an aside for a completely separate conversation, what are your credentials which allow you to post incomplete advice which, if followed, could prove detrimental to both the Academy and candidates who are applying?</p>
<p>Back to the original ‘question’. Day one, Plebe Summer, Midshipmen begin to learn teamwork. First it is among his roommates, then squad mates, and proceeding, as time progresses, platoon, company, Battalion, Brigade, and after the first commissioned tour or so, the entire Navy becomes their team. Additionally, they learn leadership concepts such as to praise in public and to reprimand in private and all the corollaries thereof. One of these corollaries is to support your leaders in public and if there is any criticism, to do so, with the leader himself, in private. BGOs are members of the Admissions department. They are listed on the organizational charts. They are issued polo shirts with the Academy logo and “Admissions” underneath. The same teamwork and leadership tenets which applied in their career development which began as midshipmen applies in their role as BGO. They are team players who support their leadership. To do otherwise is unconsciousable.</p>
<p>Additionally, let me ask you how a BGO whose user name is obviously his initials and class and whose hometown we know, who rants publically about the ineptness of the Academy leadership in relation to diversity admissions, be effective in presenting the objectives of the Academy. I am sure Whistle Pig could come up with some appropriate colorful analogies for a young candidate of color from the South who reads this forum and who, when he realizes that he has been assigned a BGO with certain initials and from a particular class, begins running and doesn’t know when to stop.</p>
<p>Sometimes anonymity is a good thing and sometimes online bios and actions are at such cross purposes the bio is suspect. Or at least, I suspect, some grads might hope so.</p>
<p>No, Luigi is 100% correct. A candidate with an LOA needs only a single nomination and they will receive a guaranteed appointment. Period. Unless the USNA admissions office has no honor or integrity. A guarantee is a guarantee, there is no requirement under an LOA that states you must get more than one nomination. </p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>Bottom line - There has never been a candidate, holding a LOA that is conditional on obtaining “a” nomination (the word “a” seems to confuse you, it indicates singularity) who has not received an appointment because they have “the wrong” nomination. </p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>You can continue to obfuscate, confuse, deflect, ignore facts, post personal attacks, allege credibility issues, register under another name after being banned, etc etc - you cannot dispute or disprove the fact that a LOA, contingent on a nomination, + ANY nomination = appointment, </p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>mombee aka USNA69, you can continue to argue with yourself, I’m done with this thread.</p>
<p>But you might want to check your own honor concept and see what it says about lying and attempting to deceive before you start slamming others for what you perceive as shortcomings in their BGO performance.</p>
<p>Yes, my appointment can “be made” because I received both an LOA and a congressional nomination. Nothing that you say will change that fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I only applied to USNA so I know for a fact that my nomination is being charged to the Naval Academy. I pursued all nominations to which I was eligible. When I received my nomination from my congressman, I know for a fact that I am GUARANTEED an appointment because the official LOA letter from the USNA stated as such. I was not going to keep my name in the running with the other two senators as I don’t want to prevent another deserving candidate from receiving a nomination from these sources. Why do you think that some senators and congressmen share the information for their slates - They want to make sure that they “spread the wealth” and give out as many nominations as possible. They don’t want to “double nominate”(so to speak) because a candidate ONLY requires ONE nomination, with an LOA, to be guaranteed an appointment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mombee - I have not claimed have “expert” status - unlike you - but I don’t need to have the appointment in hand to know for a fact that I have been GUARANTEED an appointment to USNA because I was informed of this fact in my LOA. I will not allow you to place fear in me because I didn’t follow your ridiculously extreme and unrealistic “guidance?” and hopefully, no other posters will heed your “advice?” as well. I received an LOA and I received a congressional nomination - therefore, I am GUARANTEED an appointment to USNA and I will be a member of the Class of 2014.</p>
<p>What part of this situation don’t you understand??</p>
<p>Mombee - You seem to revel in the idea of spreading confusion on these boards by stating the most extreme circumstances as fact and attacking other posters who disagree with you. You examples tend to border on being more unrealistic than factual and you apparently go into attack mode when other members don’t follow your advice.</p>
<p>As Luigu stated - “A guarantee is a guarantee”. </p>
<p>I leave you to argue with yourself - no one else is listening…!</p>
<p>Based on the conversations I have had with USNA Admissions, BGO’s and my own reading of the documents, Luigi and leoti are correct. </p>
<p>All the pontificating about which nomination a given appointment is “charged” to is pointless for those with LOA in hand. Hopefully each of them did apply for all nomination sources available to them. But once they get one, they are in. Doesn’t matter if a nomination is charged to the man in the moon. LOA + nom = appointment. </p>
<p>Trying for more nominations to give the academy options with which to offer a candidate an appointment is indeed a worthy endeavor, for the bulk of candidates who do not have an LOA. </p>
<p>mombee, I am curious as to your credentials as well. Are you a BGO? A mom? An alumni?
Director of Admissions? I don’t think anyone would slam you if you are, say “just a mom”…like me who has taken the time to learn the process and continues to do so. I think folks are just curious if you have a particular connection to USNA.</p>
The Academy states that every candidate should pursue every nomination available. My sole advice has been prior to doing anything differently, to contact CGO for approval. This is “ridiculously extreme”? “Unrealistic”?</p>
<p>Except in a very very few highly competitive areas with many competitive candidates, giving up a nomination on a particular slate will most likely not help another candidate gain any advantage whatsoever, in gaining an appointment. If it does, in almost all cases, the MOC has performed a disservice by allowing a lesser qualified candidate gain admission.</p>
There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the nomination/appointment process for a LOA than that of a non-LOA. The above statement is indeed true for non-LOAs. It also applies equally the same for LOAs. My sole point this entire thread.</p>
</p>
</p>
</p>
</p>