August 2011 Board

[leviathanms]

It seems like if they didn't care about LORs, interviews, ECs, and motivational statements, they wouldn't have you do them at all. Especially now, with the boards being so infrequent.

 

[pdizzle]

It seems like if they didn't care about LORs, interviews, ECs, and motivational statements, they wouldn't have you do them at all. Especially now, with the boards being so infrequent.

Seems like a lot of people are second guessing our source whose CO was on the board. You can't get much closer to the horse's mouth than that.

 

[mjv305]

Not my OR but a pretty authoritative and credible source in the recruiting world I've corresponded with tells me that, notwithstanding the "whole person" stuff you hear, in his opinion it comes down to grades and scores...that's it. Bad grades - better have good scores. Not so good scores - better have good grades. He doesn't think they pay attention to much of anything else - recs, interviews, extra-curriculars, motivational statements...

Its just one man's opinion, but I was surprised to hear it.

Well, in my case, i didnt have a good gpa..I enlisted already having my degree and spent three years in the military so far doing the best i can to offset that fact..You say all they look at is grades but looking at some posts here i saw people who are enlisted get picked up with high 2 gpas and 40s for their OAR. So by that information alone i would say your credible source statemenets are false..atleast for prior enlisted folks..

 

[Sparticusjmr]

Well I had fairly high grades and scores (3.84gpa and 8/8/8 63) and didn't get selected in Oct. I did however have some legal trouble a couple years ago which was my most obvious short-falling, but that goes to show you they definitely don't only rely on scores and grades alone. Much like millsra said, I think the key to winning over the board is knowing that there is no key to winning over the board. There's no way to know what each individual board member is looking for/is impressed by. There is no way to cheat the system so just make your package the best it can possibly be. An officer who themselves didn't do well on the ASTB may not put much weight on those scores while another officer who rocked the test but never participated in many extra-curriculars would value them differently.

 

[marmoset54]

Well I had fairly high grades and scores (3.84gpa and 8/8/8 63) and didn't get selected in Oct. I did however have some legal trouble a couple years ago which was my most obvious short-falling, but that goes to show you they definitely don't only rely on scores and grades alone. Much like millsra said, I think the key to winning over the board is knowing that there is no key to winning over the board. There's no way to know what each individual board member is looking for/is impressed by. There is no way to cheat the system so just make your package the best it can possibly be. An officer who themselves didn't do well on the ASTB may not put much weight on those scores while another officer who rocked the test but never participated in many extra-curriculars would value them differently.

Well said.

 

[millsra13]

Well I had fairly high grades and scores (3.84gpa and 8/8/8 63) and didn't get selected in Oct. I did however have some legal trouble a couple years ago which was my most obvious short-falling, but that goes to show you they definitely don't only rely on scores and grades alone. Much like millsra said, I think the key to winning over the board is knowing that there is no key to winning over the board. There's no way to know what each individual board member is looking for/is impressed by. There is no way to cheat the system so just make your package the best it can possibly be. An officer who themselves didn't do well on the ASTB may not put much weight on those scores while another officer who rocked the test but never participated in many extra-curriculars would value them differently.

Exactly! And your example proves my point, there is a possibility that the people who sat your board have never been in legal trouble and find it difficult to empathize with your situation so that may have contributed to your non-select. As mjv305 stated, sometimes being prior enlisted can overrule lack-luster grades and scores, especially if the applicants had stellar evals and/or if some of the board members were prior E's. For someone to say that it only comes down to scores and grades may have been the case for one board, but certainly cannot be applied as a general rule.

 

[cefiro]

Anyone have any updates on when we might hear about selections?

 

[eas7888]

Well, in my case, i didnt have a good gpa..I enlisted already having my degree and spent three years in the military so far doing the best i can to offset that fact..You say all they look at is grades but looking at some posts here i saw people who are enlisted get picked up with high 2 gpas and 40s for their OAR. So by that information alone i would say your credible source statemenets are false..atleast for prior enlisted folks..

You can't believe that all they look at is grades, grades are not everything. I had a 3.0 with a B.S. in Technology Management. It really is the whole person concept. I had 8 years and two long deployments to Iraq with the Army and about 250 hours of flight time. Let me say this again "GRADES ARE NOT EVERYTHING"

 

[Tonkovich.J]

You can't believe that all they look at is grades, grades are not everything. I had a 3.0 with a B.S. in Technology Management. It really is the whole person concept. I had 8 years and two long deployments to Iraq with the Army and about 250 hours of flight time. Let me say this again "GRADES ARE NOT EVERYTHING"

Well said, I made the mistake early on thinking that my grades would be the greatest factor. I just assumed that a 3.7 in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue and a 7/8/8 60 would almost guarantee me a selection, I was very naive back then. Therefore the first and second boards I applied for were non selects. I took that news and applied it towards improving my overall appeal. I sought out more recommendations and extracurriculars to make up that difference. Here I am a full 19 months later and looking forward to some good news.

 

[JMonte85]

Is the term actually "Naval Officer" or is it "Navy Officer?" For instance, OCS in Newport is called "United States Navy Officer Training Command." So isn't the grammatically correct term Navy Officer?

I know it's def Naval Officer.. but I don't know the difference between Navy Officer, and Naval Officer. All I know is my interviewer (retired Naval Aviator) wrote it as Naval Officer. So it must be right. Right?

 

[Tonkovich.J]

I know it's def Naval Officer.. but I don't know the difference between Navy Officer, and Naval Officer. All I know is my interviewer (retired Naval Aviator) wrote it as Naval Officer. So it must be right. Right?

Lets hope so because I did the same thing.

 

[JMonte85]

I got a call from an 847 number which is the same as my NRD and my stomach sank.. I thought that was the call.. Turned out to be some bill collector for someone looking for someone with the same last name as me..

 

[VTFlyer]

Is the term actually "Naval Officer" or is it "Navy Officer?" For instance, OCS in Newport is called "United States Navy Officer Training Command." So isn't the grammatically correct term Navy Officer?

Its pretty much in the context that you use it. When referring to a person or profession that person is a Naval Officer. As for OCS, I think you have to look at is the "United States Navy's" Officer Training Command.

 

[millsra13]

I know it's def Naval Officer.. but I don't know the difference between Navy Officer, and Naval Officer. All I know is my interviewer (retired Naval Aviator) wrote it as Naval Officer. So it must be right. Right?

I have to agree with Naval Officer, I think OCS is written that way to show that it is an Officer Training Command and is run by the United States Navy. If it was written United States Naval Officer Training Command that might lead one to think it was a Naval Officer Training Command and it was run by the United States (as opposed to giving possession the the USN). There is a good chance that I am completely wrong though...

 

[VTFlyer]

I have to agree with Naval Officer, I think OCS is written that way to show that it is an Officer Training Command and is run by the United States Navy. If it was written United States Naval Officer Training Command that might lead one to think it was a Naval Officer Training Command and it was run by the United States (as opposed to giving possession the the USN). There is a good chance that I am completely wrong though...

touché