-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
IWC Board Nov 20
- Thread starter notacoverband
- Start date
Triumph_MAC
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say that, like I had mentioned in a previous post, the GENOFF Dashboard from October had a remaining selects needed for SNA of 94 or so but the actual number selected was around 130. For intel, the october dashboard showed 34 but this updated list has 37. The 37 is the number after the Nov 30th board. If that's the case, then they wouldn't have selected any kits for INTEL and actually added 3 more after the 30 nov board. The number game on the dashboard is very interesting. Attached is the dashboard I had received from right before the October 26 aviation board.
Interesting, thank you
notacoverband
Active Member
So comparing the two dashboards says they lost a CW and only picked 1 IP? That would be ROUGH. Don't think I like those numbers at all... Or is that before the board made their picks on 30 Nov? Sometimes number games are fun, but to a math guy this one is not...
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
The remaining quotas show Oceano still has possibilities, but like I have said before a lot will depend on if they choose to pick those now and shift to FY 22 thereby short changing the boards in FY 22 or do they just not use all the selections.
BasketballisLife
Well-Known Member
Excuse my ignorance, but are you suggesting or affirming that no intel (1830) kits were picked up this board? Also, how can you tell this dashboard was made after the 30 Nov board? Not disputing at all, just looking for clarity. @exNavyOffRec Would you be able to affirm or clarify what he meant? My apologies, I feel kind of dumb right now ?
Triumph_MAC
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that INTEL didn't pick anyone from this past cycle, that was just an example of how the numbers don't really match up. Mainly the remaining selects needed. For example, the October Dashboard said that SNA only needed 91 spots however, they selected 136. The dashboard that goes into effect after 01 Dec still had 102 spots remaining for pilot. INTEL showed 34 spots from the October dashboard but on the one posted that goes into effect 01 Dec, INTEL needed 37. The remaining selects needed doesn't make sense to me. That's why I had stated if those were true, then both SNA and INTEL wouldn't have picked any kits, instead, they added numbers to be picked.
Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. Lol
BasketballisLife
Well-Known Member
Lol I'm tracking. Had a slow moment there and didn't read it carefully enough. My bad about the double messages to you. Good luck man!
Guess if we're too old to qualify for almost all designations as a plan B on the list - which is why I only applied for Intel - then we can relate our probability of selection to that one famous quote by Jim Carey in Dumb & Dumber. I believe that most of y'all know the quote I'm talking about. If y'all don't, I'm gonna sit the rest of the forum out until we get the results hopefully the week of Jan 11th. My OR assured me my app was strong, yet since I'm applying as a civilian and not currently AD military with no prior years of service I have my doubts. Pretty sure we all are a little uncertain how good of a shot we have to be selected - I'm not talking about the ones that score 65+ on the OAR, have a 3.75+ GPA, &/or put 3 languages they speak fluently on their app - of course, that isn't an exhaustive list of those who are 100% certain they'll get selected.
BasketballisLife
Well-Known Member
To my understanding and from what others have posted on here (and based on my observations of those selected from previous boards) AD and prior military doesn't really mean to much IWC or most boards. It seems more civilians get picked up at a higher rate, but there are more civilian applications as well. Sometimes being AD or prior can work against a person as well; particularly if someone that is prior and was a shitbag as an enlisted sailor. Some boards may look at extensive time in service as a negative as well because as a prior you're closer to the 20 year retirement vs someone that is a civilian; all that to say, I'd imagine boards would want the potential for longevity of service in their candidates. It's all my speculation though, it all probably depends on the board members. I wouldn't count yourself out for being a civilian; we regularly see several civilians picked up over AD for several boards. The one constant I've noticed is GPA and degree being a heavy indicator regardless of prior, civilian, or AD status.
PringleMan
Well-Known Member
They also almost consider AD as a separate recruiting source, not necessarily in direct competition. In some of the documentation they will list AD as a separate quota count for recruiting goals, though as anything it can go back and forth pretty easily.
PringleMan
Well-Known Member
Also on this, the lost CW was me haha
I got de-selected because of some BS with my SCI not be cross-compliant with another stakeholder for the CW program.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
all one goal, it is not the easiest but AD, reservist, and civilian all compete directly against each other. IWC has in the past given "bonus points" for AD in an IWC rate, and that backfired greatly, then it swung the other way where AD were pretty much screwed going for any IWC designator, now it is more balanced.
What you are thinking of is that they keep track of who they select to make sure they don't make the same mistake, think of it as an after action report, as they have in the past, the IWC for a few years had a bad track record of not listening to NRC and the Director of OCS programs and the IWC made some big mistakes that took years to recover from.
They do the same tracking not just for AD, reservist, civilian sources, but also demographics like M/F, and also if a person is Hispanic, Asian, White, etc..... it allows them to know if they need to focus recruiting on certain areas. Enlisted recruiting is the opposite they look on the front end.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
you would think some of this would apply, I have seen straight P sailor picked up that had great GPA and/or ASTB, worked with a sailor who was consistently an EP (shining star of the department), but lower GPA, was a non-select several times, after I left the ship found out the sailor finished a MA with a great GPA, reapplied picked up, then DOR'd in OCS.
Yes extensive service time has been an issue, that is why several designators now cap how much time a person can have.