29JUNE2026 IWC Board

[caldepp]

That's terrifying... any idea what it's like at NIOBC? Were those delayed supply OCS grads just sent on OHARP?

A couple weeks ago I I talked to a friend who just shipped out for OCS this last week and he said he's been informed there will be a gap between OCS and NIOBC. I don't remember how long though. A couple months I think. A hurry up and wait thing it looks like. I'm bracing myself for a gap between OCS and NIOBC, if, that is, I get selected in the first place.

I just looked up OHARP and yea that's what they said he'd be doing after OCS. Lots of new acronyms for an outsider like me.

 

[skibum]

I am looking at the spreadsheet now.. looks fine? Someone may have fixed it

Huh, someone did fix it. Perhaps the (accidental) culprit reverted their changes.

No feedback on NIOBC.

Yes, but it was a choice for them. They could choose OHARP or do admin work at Newport until they class up (there is a term for it but I forget). I’d say 90% of the Supply Officers took OHARP and needless to say, whenever we spoke, they were living there best lives lol

Is OHARP pretty laid back? Putting cart before the horse here, but after waiting 9+ months for board results, the thought waiting MORE time before starting follow on schooling after OCS makes me ill. I've already grown my first couple of gray hairs since submitting my package in December I guess after three months of OCS, OHARP may be a welcome reprieve for some folks.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Makes complete sense, but has the INTEL board really been deliberating for this long? I was under the impression that the selection process isn't itself very long once the board convenes (and has likely already completed), so really we're just waiting for them to release results for some reason. I understand what you're saying, that the EOD board mostly knew its determinations before the convention, but how are communities like EOD able to release results so much faster once they've made their decisions?

In most cases it is a matter of figuring out OCS dates in one way or another.

 

[rudysixx]

Huh, someone did fix it. Perhaps the (accidental) culprit reverted their changes.

Is OHARP pretty laid back? Putting cart before the horse here, but after waiting 9+ months for board results, the thought waiting MORE time before starting follow on schooling after OCS makes me ill. I've already grown my first couple of gray hairs since submitting my package in December I guess after three months of OCS, OHARP may be a welcome reprieve for some folks.

Yes, very laid back. All I can say is get used to the waiting haha nearly every designator in my class had down time between graduation and when they classed up. I think the only ones who didn’t were Civil Engineers and 2-3 supply officers, they rolled right into to their classes. Everything else has at minimum a 3 month wait. It was happily accepted amongst everyone though, after OCS you’re ready for a break.

 

[Gandalf_Actual]

…I'm bracing myself for a gap between OCS and NIOBC…

Expectation management of the wisest order.

 

[Background bear]

Huh, someone did fix it. Perhaps the (accidental) culprit reverted their changes.

Is OHARP pretty laid back? Putting cart before the horse here, but after waiting 9+ months for board results, the thought waiting MORE time before starting follow on schooling after OCS makes me ill. I've already grown my first couple of gray hairs since submitting my package in December I guess after three months of OCS, OHARP may be a welcome reprieve for some folks.

For a few reasons I had I want to say 4 separate days at medical. I did 2-3 for the initial medical as opposed to one day at MEPS. Every time, a new Ensign on OHARP would drive me from the recruiting office to Sewell's Point which is a medical facility at NAVSTA Norfolk and just hang out the whole time. I'm sure there was some side/background tasks they were working on while there, but it definitely seemed pretty chill lol.

Also, I totally feel you on the stress of waiting since submitting. It was April for me. I know that a career in the military involves a monumental amount of time spent waiting. I'm sure there are times for any officer where it's tough, but I feel that this wait is different. Maybe it's because I'm a a civilian, but this is such a a major delineation from my current life and trajectory. Not that my current situation is bad, it's quite good. But I've been ready to make this change as I believe it'll set me and my family up a lot better in the long term and provide me more fulfillment than my current career. So at least one other perspective is that even if we are waiting in the future, at least we'll be on the path we so desired. That being said, my sister is getting married in Mexico next December so any delay between OCS and NIOBC would only decrease my already slim chances of being able to go

 

[Bobby454]

Today!!

 

[Lamb]

This is a very measured response. However, apropos the security clearance, if I'm not mistaken, CWO and CSWO also require TS/SCI clearance (the PAs for INTEL, CWO, and CSWO mention the same level of clearance), yet both those designators received results weeks ago, so again I'm at a loss as to why this is taking so long... at this point though I'm just complaining lol. Then again, why not exercise that right while I still can haha.

I've already been chided for "conspiracy theories," but this whole "filling the funnel" thesis is bonkers to me. I guess personnel are just spread thin, so they're making do with what resources they have. Still not a great excuse for the lack of transparency (if you're settled on doing it once a year, then advertise it as such, Admiral!).

If an applicant meets the requirements outlined in the PA and you have a quota available for them, I can understand how a "first come, first served" basis makes sense for the process. Why would I skip over a qualified applicant that is interested now for a stellar applicant in the future who might not even exist?

 

[skibum]

If an applicant meets the requirements outlined in the PA and you have a quota available for them, I can understand how a "first come, first served" basis makes sense for the process. Why would I skip over a qualified applicant that is interested now for a stellar applicant in the future who might not even exist?

What do you mean "first come, first served"--wouldn't that be more inline with quarterly board conventions? By doing them annually (and advertising them as quarterly), you're not serving the "first come" at all--you're serving everyone all at once, and those who were qualified and "first come" may have in fact moved onto greener pastures (e.g. folks like Bluetango15, who isn't applying to IWC because of board cancellations). If you're interested in taking great applicants NOW, then more regular, quarterly board conventions would be in your interest.

I guess as things stand, because we're effectively in annual board cycles now, there is a bit of a quagmire. There are pretty much two decent ways out of it: 1) keep it at one board convention a year, but advertise it as such (like college admissions) or 2) start admitting people quarterly, but for a short bit you're going to have to give people much later OCS dates (this will resolve itself as time goes on)

 

[Lamb]

What do you mean "first come, first served"--wouldn't that be more inline with quarterly board conventions? By doing them annually (and advertising them as quarterly), you're not serving the "first come" at all--you're serving everyone all at once, and those who were qualified and "first come" may have in fact moved onto greener pastures (e.g. folks like Bluetango15, who isn't applying to IWC because of board cancellations). If you're interested in taking great applicants NOW, then more regular, quarterly board conventions would be in your interest.

What I am saying is that if I have 200 quotas to fill for the FY, and 105 applicants who meet the requirements the first board and 95 applicants who meet the requirements the second board, why should I not fill all 200 slots with these 200 applicants and cancel the remaining 2-3 boards for the FY? This is essentially what is happening. If I only selected 100 of these 200 qualified, how can I guarantee that I will have more or better applicants at the remaining boards?

 

[skibum]

What I am saying is that if I have 200 quotas to fill for the FY, and 105 applicants who meet the requirements the first board and 95 applicants who meet the requirements the second board, why should I not fill all 200 slots with these 200 applicants and cancel the remaining 2-3 boards for the FY? This is essentially what is happening. If I only selected 100 of these 200 qualified, how can I guarantee that I will have more or better applicants at the remaining boards?

There is no guarantee, but if you were to take the top 50 from four quarterly boards (which is much more like FCFS), you might end up with a creamier crop, a more regular stream to OCS/schools, and happier applicants--those not admitted can always re-apply, and plenty do (I'm sure those re-applying will be happy to know they'll be considered in 6 months, the required minimum re-app period, not 12). Given that the August board is the one immediately following college graduations, it will likely be the busiest, so take more from that board (maybe half or a third of spots are filled at this board, for example).

Or, if you want to just do everything at one annual board (as is currently happening--there haven't even been 2 boards per year for civilians for the last few years), then advertise it as such! As I've repeated several times, that's totally fine, but be transparent about it.

 

[Lamb]

There is no guarantee, but if you were to take the top 50 from four quarterly boards (which is much more like FCFS), you might end up with a creamier crop, a more regular stream to OCS/schools, and happier applicants--those not admitted can always re-apply, and plenty do (I'm sure those re-applying will be happy to know they'll be considered in 6 months, the required minimum re-app period, not 12). Given that the August board is the one immediately following college graduations, it will likely be the busiest, so take more from that board (maybe half or a third of spots are filled at this board, for example).

Or, if you want to just do everything at one annual board (as is currently happening--there haven't even been 2 boards per year for civilians for the last few years), then advertise it as such! As I've repeated several times, that's totally fine, but be transparent about it.

Or you could end up with a final board with only 25 applicants and you needed 40 more for the FY quotas or several applicants who weren't as competitive as ones you dismissed because they weren't "top 50" of the previous boards, but since you have to meet the quotas they get selected. I think the way it's moving now is honestly as fair as it can be given the current circumstances. Everyone gets a fair look and if the quotas for the FY are full, they don't just convene the boards as scheduled and give a PRO-REC N to everyone, they automatically move the applicants to the next available board.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for an annual OCS board for each designator. I'm just acknowledging that perhaps the sheer number of qualified applicants have made it hard to need more boards recently. For the most part, I think they've done a decent job on updating the calendars and being upfront about cancellations. What I will say is that I can't speak from the perspective of a civilian applicant who has to rely on communication from the OR, so I can see how that would be an added layer of frustration.

 

[rfsigs]

You guys both have good points. It seems skibum would be willing to assume more risk for a better selection pool, while lamb is a bit more risk adverse for the sake of filling quotas. Good conversation y’all.

 

[Lamb]

You guys both have good points. It seems skibum would be willing to assume more risk for a better selection pool, while lamb is a bit more risk adverse for the sake of filling quotas. Good conversation y’all.

Yeah, I am certainly not saying that the current boards are perfect, but it would be hard to think of a way to correct it.

Also, I would argue that since the boards roll-over, I would say the current system has the best possibility of getting the strongest applicants. I bet more applicants would rather wait a bit for a board to convene than to flat out be given PRO REC-N because they were ranked #11 of the applicants that board, but the board was only accepting 10 to spread the quotas throughout the year. Now they have to wait at least 6 months and re-apply/possibly get DQ'd if waivers were a factor.

 

[skibum]

Or you could end up with a final board with only 25 applicants and you needed 40 more for the FY quotas or several applicants who weren't as competitive as ones you dismissed because they weren't "top 50" of the previous boards, but since you have to meet the quotas they get selected. I think the way it's moving now is honestly as fair as it can be given the current circumstances. Everyone gets a fair look and if the quotas for the FY are full, they don't just convene the boards as scheduled and give a PRO-REC N to everyone, they automatically move the applicants to the next available board.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for an annual OCS board for each designator. I'm just acknowledging that perhaps the sheer number of qualified applicants have made it hard to need more boards recently. For the most part, I think they've done a decent job on updating the calendars and being upfront about cancellations. What I will say is that I can't speak from the perspective of a civilian applicant who has to rely on communication from the OR, so I can see how that would be an added layer of frustration.

I think we're kinda talking past each other. The "sheer number of qualified applicants" at these annual boards is a problem caused by the reduced number of boards. The reason you're getting so many applicants to a single board is precisely because a single board is convening every year. Spread them across four quarters and you end up with a more manageable number of applicants per board (which, ideally, would let the Navy be more selective [a good thing], have a higher yield, reduce bottlenecks, and produce steadier streams of recruits). Without a doubt, the way things are run now does not work for applicants: there are very qualified people who will not put up with a process of continual board cancellations. And there will always be that 51st or 11th or whatever number person who does not make it in because of the quota--that's just how competitive hiring works and we all understand that we could be that person. In fact, getting a PRO-REC N might be a good thing (instead of just waiting a full year for the next board, it'll give that person feedback that they can use: retake the OAR, take a class to get GPA up, so on and so forth).

You very well may end up with too few applicants in the last quarter, but that's easily addressable by selecting more applicants from the August board, for example, or admitting more in the next cycle, especially when OCS dates are so far out. Metaphorically speaking, NRC throwing all it's INTEL eggs into one board basket is not de-risking, it's adding risk (that applicants get impatient and drop, that while waiting they find another job they want to do instead, that they have life events, etc). I understand that when a board is cancelled, they're not giving everyone a PRO-REC N and are instead moving people to the next board, but for many people, waiting another 12 months to be considered again isn't exactly feasible.

I can yap on forever, but I'll take rfsigs's hint and go for a walk lol. At the end of the day, it sucks as an applicant, but as you said, it works for the Navy