IWC board 29-Nov-21

[Reflekt]

This will serve more as a placeholder since I am just beggining my package. Active Duty ET1 also submitting for IP LDO. When complete, plan to submit for OCS.

#1: IP #2: CW?
Age/TIS: 32 / 10 years
Sex: Male
Education: B.S in Information Technology (No Calc)
GPA: 3.0
OAR: Scheduled for August
Evaluations: ET1: P, MP, MP, EP
LOR: In progress
Appraisal: In progress
Awards: 2x NAM, 1x JSAM, 2x ARCOM, 2x JSCM w/ "C" device, SOY FY18, SOY FY20
Qualifications: EXW, IW, FPJ
Certifications: A+, NET+, SEC+, Project+, ITIL4, AWS CCP, LPI Linux Foundations
Waivers: None.

 

[sarioujr]

This will serve more as a placeholder since I am just beggining my package. Active Duty ET1 also submitting for IP LDO. When complete, plan to submit for OCS.

#1: IP #2: CW?
Age/TIS: 32 / 10 years
Sex: Male
Education: B.S in Information Technology (No Calc)
GPA: 3.0
OAR: Scheduled for August
Evaluations: ET1: P, MP, MP, EP
LOR: In progress
Appraisal: In progress
Awards: 2x NAM, 1x JSAM, 2x ARCOM, 2x JSCM w/ "C" device, SOY FY18, SOY FY20
Qualifications: EXW, IW, FPJ
Certifications: A+, NET+, SEC+, Project+, ITIL4, AWS CCP, LPI Linux Foundations
Waivers: None.

Just as an FYI, CW has a TIS limit of 60 Months. Waiverable only up to 72 months.

 

[Creeping_Geep]

Has anyone seen this? Was first heard for me.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Has anyone seen this? Was first heard for me.
View attachment 31792

This was a thing several years ago, as was several other items they are talking about or are doing again, some of those who were OR's several years ago are now in leadership positions and it looks like are going back to what is working.

The difference is the PM's were never told to not accept applications, while the processors do a lot of work to get application processed limiting the number of applications goes against the "best qualified" selections and now seems to put priority of "who gets submitted first", I guess if it gets really bad the board can just not use all of their selections like has on a few times happened. The designator this could have the most noticeable issues with is aviation and attrition, it is a known fact that those with lower scores have greater chance to not complete the pipeline, that greater attrition will create problems.

If they are going to do the green, yellow, red this probably means they will start denying more waivers in order to get more to board with no issues.

This shows the effects of COVID and people being pushed due to it will take time to work itself out.

 

[Reflekt]

Just as an FYI, CW has a TIS limit of 60 Months. Waiverable only up to 72 months.

Interesting. Thanks for this.

 

[CWO_change]

Interesting. Thanks for this.

It sucks, but it makes sense given the health of the community at the O3 and O4 ranks now. Too many priors with significant years of service were commissioning as 1810s and retiring at their 20 year marks as O3s, which was not sustainable. Between that and non-prior accessions getting out to pursue lucrative cyber jobs, etc., on the outside, things continue to be pretty rough, with selection rate to O4 reflecting this (well above 90% in recent cycles). I wish they were able to get a lengthy service obligation out of priors past the 5-6 year mark, though, as there is a lot of talent that the community is missing out on because of this rule.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

It sucks, but it makes sense given the health of the community at the O3 and O4 ranks now. Too many priors with significant years of service were commissioning as 1810s and retiring at their 20 year marks as O3s, which was not sustainable. Between that and non-prior accessions getting out to pursue lucrative cyber jobs, etc., on the outside, things continue to be pretty rough, with selection rate to O4 reflecting this (well above 90% in recent cycles). I wish they were able to get a lengthy service obligation out of priors past the 5-6 year mark, though, as there is a lot of talent that the community is missing out on because of this rule.

This same issue happened many years ago, as for the longest time if you weren't a prior service in the Intel field it was nearly impossible to get selected, then what you described happened which led to being a prior service trying for Intel being almost the kiss of death, and it looks like it happened again so the TIS is a way to find a good balance.

 

[nidhoggr]

Age: 33
Sex: Male
Education: B.S. Management Information Systems
GPA: 3.11
OAR: TBD
Evaluations: P NOB P
LOR: CDR / LCDR
Appraisal: LT / LCDR / CDR
Awards: 1 NAM
Certifications: IW / SW / Project+
Waivers: None.

 

[RhodesReese]

Applying for 1810, 1820, and 1830

Age: 32
Sex: Male
Rate: CTIC (IW/EXW)
GPA: 3.89 undergrad 3.4 graduate
Education: A.A Korean from Defense Language Institute | B.S Computer Networking and Cyber Security from UMGC | Graduate Certificate in Cyber Fundamentals from Naval Postgraduate School
Prior service: 11 years
Last five evals: MP, P ( First E7), MP (Frocking), EP, P ( First E6)
OAR: 52
LORs: O-8 ( Active duty when LOR was written. Currently retired)
Appraisals: 1820 O-6 | 1820 O-5 | 1810 O-5 | 1830 O-5 ( All 10's)
Awards: NCOM x2, NAM x 2, JSAM x2, Combat Action Ribbon, Department of State Meritorious Award, MOVSM, misc. campaign awards
Qualifications: Information Warfare, Expeditionary Warfare
Certifications: CompTIA ITF+, A+, CEH, Advanced Computer Network Operation, Korean linguist, other misc. certs.
Waivers: TIS waiver for 1810
Leadership during service: Currently a Platoon LCPO. Previously held leadership positions: SIGINT NCOIC, LPO, Command Language Program Manager, Dep CC, DEP EXW coordinator, Troop Ordnance LPO.

 

[RhodesReese]

No spots open for GENOFF Intel 1830 or SWO-IP options FYI for FY-22.

 

[RhodesReese]

Has anyone seen this? Was first heard for me.
View attachment 31792

No Intel or SWO-IP for FY-22

 

[Creeping_Geep]

No spots open for GENOFF Intel 1830 or SWO-IP options FYI for FY-22.

My only question at this point is what N311 does with fleet applications when the designator is closed. (The only reason it is a question is because several people who ought to know have given me different answers; I have heard they are rejected outright, I have heard they are held until the next board, and I have heard they are "always accepted", whatever that means.

 

[RhodesReese]

Sam

My only question at this point is what N311 does with fleet applications when the designator is closed. (The only reason it is a question is because several people who ought to know have given me different answers; I have heard they are rejected outright, I have heard they are held until the next board, and I have heard they are "always accepted", whatever that means.

Same thing happened to a buddy of mine. Intel was closed. The processed his application and held onto it for the next board with quotas.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

My only question at this point is what N311 does with fleet applications when the designator is closed. (The only reason it is a question is because several people who ought to know have given me different answers; I have heard they are rejected outright, I have heard they are held until the next board, and I have heard they are "always accepted", whatever that means.

The answer is "it depends", for instance if the signatures would be a year old by the time the board is held on the application or the LOR's it should be rejected, it also depends on the how long it will be closed for, and it really comes down to what the PM and the director want, in some cases applications were not processed and no one was notified, in other cases an email was sent out telling recruiters and NRC processors not to sent or accept application until a specific date.

I have seen it where a few months prior to the next open board all application on hand were rejected and sent back for resubmission to make sure all dates were up to date.

you just need to be ready for anything.

 

[Creeping_Geep]

Package is complete and will go "in the mail" tomorrow. Interesting note, I learned that when Army optometrists fill out the color vision portion of the 2808 they list how many PIP plates the examinee missed, while Navy optometrists list the number correct. Quite the source of confusion for my Navy provider today.