OCS 02Nov20 SNA/SNFO (Pilot/NFO) Board

[Ghost SWO]

SNA would be PFAR, SNFO would be FOFAR

since you are active duty they will look at your appraisals to make sure nothing glaring.

back when recruiters would deal with reservist I saw reservist picked up with evals that were straight P's but had 8 on PFAR, had a guy with officer appraisals of 8 and 9 but a GPA of high 3's and he was picked up. That should give an idea of the weight of LOR's and appraisals.

Can you explain the difference with the two examples, I'm not sure what's good or bad between them? I'm coming from the USAF where "P" I'm assuming is Promote? Compared to Early Promote or Must Promote? Which is like a 3 out of 5 on an annual evaluation? And since he had straight 3's or Promotes (P) but had an 8 PFAR he got picked up, so you're saying the lower evaluations didn't mean much in that case?

Where do interviews or officer appraisals come in and what does an 8 or 9 signify?, Is that for current active duty personnel? I haven't heard anything about that.

 

[Triumph_MAC]

Can you explain the difference with the two examples, I'm not sure what's good or bad between them? I'm coming from the USAF where "P" I'm assuming is Promote? Compared to Early Promote or Must Promote? Which is like a 3 out of 5 on an annual evaluation? And since he had straight 3's or Promotes (P) but had an 8 PFAR he got picked up, so you're saying the lower evaluations didn't mean much in that case?

Where do interviews or officer appraisals come in and what does an 8 or 9 signify?, Is that for current active duty personnel? I haven't heard anything about that.

For the Navy side of the house, a P means you are meeting the standard and you are promotable. Typically you'll see AD Navy folks list their 3 evaluations they are going into the board with. You'll see someone say P (welcome aboard), which means they may not have been in the command long enough to get a solid ranked eval with their peers. In the case of the individuals exNavyOffRec mentioned, those folks had straight P's which would typically mean they showed up to work everyday and did their job. They didnt do anything aside from that to get ranked higher amongst their peers. For someone to have 3 straight P evals, that says they just met the standard.
In that case, the board weighed heavily on their ASTB scores compared to evals.

8's and 9's he's referring to is what the interviewers graded the member at after their interview with the candidate. 10's mean you were outstanding across the board in regards to Officer potential, motivation, appearance etc. You see some folks here on Airwarriors mention their interviews are all 10's, meaning they impressed the interviewer. If you get 8's and 9's, then there was certain things in your record or how you interviewed that stood out so you didn't score as high. Again, in the case of the other individual that was mentioned, they got lower appraisal scores but their higher GPA held more weight on that board.

With evals you want to show progression or what we refer to as sustained superior performance. If you received a "new guy" P eval, your next eval should be either an MP or if you really hit the ground running, an EP. That shows they did more than just showed up to work. The interview appraisals the AD folks get should ideally be all 10's.

I know this is long winded and I hope I at least answered some questions you had.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

For the Navy side of the house, a P means you are meeting the standard and you are promotable. Typically you'll see AD Navy folks list their 3 evaluations they are going into the board with. You'll see someone say P (welcome aboard), which means they may not have been in the command long enough to get a solid ranked eval with their peers. In the case of the individuals exNavyOffRec mentioned, those folks had straight P's which would typically mean they showed up to work everyday and did their job. They didnt do anything aside from that to get ranked higher amongst their peers. For someone to have 3 straight P evals, that says they just met the standard.
In that case, the board weighed heavily on their ASTB scores compared to evals.

8's and 9's he's referring to is what the interviewers graded the member at after their interview with the candidate. 10's mean you were outstanding across the board in regards to Officer potential, motivation, appearance etc. You see some folks here on Airwarriors mention their interviews are all 10's, meaning they impressed the interviewer. If you get 8's and 9's, then there was certain things in your record or how you interviewed that stood out so you didn't score as high. Again, in the case of the other individual that was mentioned, they got lower appraisal scores but their higher GPA held more weight on that board.

With evals you want to show progression or what we refer to as sustained superior performance. If you received a "new guy" P eval, your next eval should be either an MP or if you really hit the ground running, an EP. That shows they did more than just showed up to work. The interview appraisals the AD folks get should ideally be all 10's.

I know this is long winded and I hope I at least answered some questions you had.

perfect explanation

 

[Ghost SWO]

For the Navy side of the house, a P means you are meeting the standard and you are promotable. Typically you'll see AD Navy folks list their 3 evaluations they are going into the board with. You'll see someone say P (welcome aboard), which means they may not have been in the command long enough to get a solid ranked eval with their peers. In the case of the individuals exNavyOffRec mentioned, those folks had straight P's which would typically mean they showed up to work everyday and did their job. They didnt do anything aside from that to get ranked higher amongst their peers. For someone to have 3 straight P evals, that says they just met the standard.
In that case, the board weighed heavily on their ASTB scores compared to evals.

8's and 9's he's referring to is what the interviewers graded the member at after their interview with the candidate. 10's mean you were outstanding across the board in regards to Officer potential, motivation, appearance etc. You see some folks here on Airwarriors mention their interviews are all 10's, meaning they impressed the interviewer. If you get 8's and 9's, then there was certain things in your record or how you interviewed that stood out so you didn't score as high. Again, in the case of the other individual that was mentioned, they got lower appraisal scores but their higher GPA held more weight on that board.

With evals you want to show progression or what we refer to as sustained superior performance. If you received a "new guy" P eval, your next eval should be either an MP or if you really hit the ground running, an EP. That shows they did more than just showed up to work. The interview appraisals the AD folks get should ideally be all 10's.

I know this is long winded and I hope I at least answered some questions you had.

I had a discussion with my recruiter when I was in the office to take the ASTB in February regarding the difference between USAF and USN enlisted evaluations. I hope the board doesn't look at my USAF evaluations through a USN lens because that certainly wouldn't be a fair shake.

I like that the Navy had incrementally rated evaluations from what I've heard, personnel can get like a 3.6, 4.2 etc. The AF evals are all whole numbers, there is no in-between. They changed the evaluation system so that everyone starts at a 3, and the squadrons limit the amount of individuals at the 4, or 5 level. So if you have 5 enlisted airmen in your squadron, three will get a 3 by default, one will receive a 4, and one will receive a 5. Even if they're all stellar workers, they can't all receive an accurate evaluation according to their merit. It's very much a "my guy vs your guy" mentality and who gets what numerical evaluation. I would have liked to at least get an incremental number or average. On my evaluations I'm rated in specific categories as a 4 or 5, but the "overall" would be a 3 because I got beat out by someone else, and my evaluation doesn't reflect anything regarding the individual categories that say I'm a 4 or 5. What is remembered and cataloged is the 3... I definitely like the USN way of doing evals, it seems a little more fair to the individual. It's nice to hear that the evals aren't looked at too much but it can be worrisome to think about how they're viewed differently between branches.

Thanks for your reply and info!

 

[Ghost SWO]

Please make sure to update the spreadsheet if you were able to submit for this board or not and for missing info.

Also, if there are individuals monitoring the forum but don't have an AirWarriors account activated yet and you've submitted for this board, please include your information on the sheet as well.

28 Oct 2020 Pilot/NFO Board

Sheet1 ,FinSel,ProRec-Y,ProRec-N,Overall Board Acceptance Rate,Application Due Date,Board Date,Results Actual,Excel Total Applicants 18 Sep 2020,28 Oct,8 Dec 2020,75 Applicant Averages,Excel Prior Service OAR,AQR,PFAR,FOFAR,GPA,Age,74.14%,Excel Averages ProRec Y 56,6.59,7.01,6.84,2.80,26,SNA's...

docs.google.com

 

[TheCoon]

Thank you to whoever put my stats on there, I don’t remember doing that myself.

There was some stuff missing that I just filled in. It looks like the changes stuck, but if they didn’t please slide into my DMs and let me know. I can try it again.

 

[Triumph_MAC]

I had a discussion with my recruiter when I was in the office to take the ASTB in February regarding the difference between USAF and USN enlisted evaluations. I hope the board doesn't look at my USAF evaluations through a USN lens because that certainly wouldn't be a fair shake.

I like that the Navy had incrementally rated evaluations from what I've heard, personnel can get like a 3.6, 4.2 etc. The AF evals are all whole numbers, there is no in-between. They changed the evaluation system so that everyone starts at a 3, and the squadrons limit the amount of individuals at the 4, or 5 level. So if you have 5 enlisted airmen in your squadron, three will get a 3 by default, one will receive a 4, and one will receive a 5. Even if they're all stellar workers, they can't all receive an accurate evaluation according to their merit. It's very much a "my guy vs your guy" mentality and who gets what numerical evaluation. I would have liked to at least get an incremental number or average. On my evaluations I'm rated in specific categories as a 4 or 5, but the "overall" would be a 3 because I got beat out by someone else, and my evaluation doesn't reflect anything regarding the individual categories that say I'm a 4 or 5. What is remembered and cataloged is the 3... I definitely like the USN way of doing evals, it seems a little more fair to the individual. It's nice to hear that the evals aren't looked at too much but it can be worrisome to think about how they're viewed differently between branches.

Thanks for your reply and info!

I can't speak for the board but, I would assume they will see your evaluations are Air Force and know they are graded differently. Once you get selected into OCS and start leading Sailors as an Officer, you'll learn all about Navy evaluations.

 

[Ghost SWO]

Hey all,

I just want to clarify the excel, I think some people drop their scores here and say they're applying but never come back to say they've actually applied or made the cutoff because of MEPS, waivers, etc for the excel.

I've input Y/N based on a lack of information but please double check to make sure I haven't made a mistake somewhere on the excel sheet.

@biscuitsandgravy Submitted?
@Ricosroughnecks7 Submitted?
@Triumph_MAC Flight exp?
@Marmaduke123 SNA and/or NFO?
@Genghis95 Flight exp?
@jlh1850 Flight exp? Submitted?
@Bravo 6 Submitted? SNA and/or NFO, prior service, flight exp?
@Tgonzo29 Prior service?
@tcham28 Submitted?

Thanks!

 

[tcham28]

Hey all,

I just want to clarify the excel, I think some people drop their scores here and say they're applying but never come back to say they've actually applied or made the cutoff because of MEPS, waivers, etc for the excel.

I've input Y/N based on a lack of information but please double check to make sure I haven't made a mistake somewhere on the excel sheet.

@biscuitsandgravy Submitted?
@Ricosroughnecks7 Submitted?
@Triumph_MAC Flight exp?
@Marmaduke123 SNA and/or NFO?
@Genghis95 Flight exp?
@jlh1850 Flight exp? Submitted?
@Bravo 6 Submitted? SNA and/or NFO, prior service, flight exp?
@Tgonzo29 Prior service?
@tcham28 Submitted?

Thanks!

Done!

 

[BarryMc]

Yeah I did! I missed the august bird by like a day. I got a 46 6/8/7 so I’m just glad they look at the 8 and not my oar lol

To give you hope I just got selected from the August board with a 49 5/7/6 for SNA

 

[kyleerlich]

Wait, I thought seeing you on my 3 Aug board?!

I was following the thread for the 03Aug20 board, but I was finishing my degree, so I actually ended up applying to this board instead. Did you submit for the August board, or are you on this one?

 

[Terrypolanco2]

To give you hope I just got selected from the August board with a 49 5/7/6 for SNA

Awesome for you man!! I am hopeful about the Nov board i just dont feel like waiting lol. Good luck to anyone applying for Nov

 

[Ty.Hinds57]

Since we're all playing the waiting game, I thought I'd throw a couple military aviation books on here if anyone is interested. Mix of fiction and non-fiction, but all have been great ways to keep motivation up.

Devotion, by Adam Makos
A higher call, by Adam Makos
Raven One, by Capt. Kevin P. Miller (Ret)
Flight of the Intruder, by Stephen Coonts

 

[kyleerlich]

Sorry this response is long...

That is interesting. It really sounds like NAMI is providing guidance and authority for N3M to give their stamp of approval. On the other hand, if the waiver deferred to NAMI and you did not receive one, that's NAMI saying no to N3M right? As a prior service guy, I know this happens a lot where an agency will rely on another to make it's decision.

I dig some digging. This is from cnrc.navy.mil...

"An applicant may be disqualified for medical reasons on the initial medical pre-screen which is conducted prior to the physical at MEPS. If MEPS disqualifies a candidate based on the medical pre-screen (2807-2), then MEPS will not allow the applicant to process further. NRC’s Medical Waivers department (N3M) may request the MEPS to conduct a physical if they feel the medical condition is likely to be something considered waiverable.

Once the final results of the MEPS physical and appropriate consultations are complete, the results are forwarded to N3M for adjudication. (A formal judgement on a disputed matter)

N3M requires the following forms: DD 2807-2, a medical pre-screen form; DD2807-1, a report of medical history; and DD 2808, a report of medical examination.

These documents, along with any additional medical information that pertains to the disqualifying conditions are used in waiver determination,”. “From there, N3M will make a recommendation to the current Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, on whether or not to approve or disapprove the waiver.”

So, it looks like if you have a waiver you're good because it's already been adjudicated and approved by the NRC Commander. The initial screening at MEPS is specifically for a SNA/NFO slot so I don't understand how it would need further action beyond N3M. It states, "The recruiter can contact N3M for additional information." which sounds like N3M is the final stop according to Navy Recruiting Command, not NAMI.

I dug a little more...

NAMI on the other hand, according to med.navy.mil speaks specifically to the waiver process of current aviation personnel (/sites/nmotc/nami/arwg/Documents/WaiverGuide/02_Waiver_Process.pdf). I think he was saying even if we receive a waiver now, get accepted into SNA or NFO, go to training etc, an additional waiver may not be granted for continuation in aviation which is true.

The fact that we have a waiver now though should guarantee upon selection that we will make it to OCS without issue. Beyond that, it's a new ball game. Active duty personnel, new waivers, new process. As to why the waiver defers to NAMI I do not know, are there multiple signatures? There may be signatures from N3M and NAMI? It sounds like N3M referred to NAMI guidance on an issue and then signed off on the waiver based on their information. I don't have my waiver to look at unfortunately.

At least that's what I gather from all of that. I've never heard anyone say, "I had a waiver but got turned down somewhere in the process because of it". I don't think that's how this works. You could be turned down after you're in the Navy for an additional waiver request but not beforehand, and certainly not for the existence of our current waiver. If that's the case what's the point of a waiver now?

I'm operating under the pretext that my waiver (along with those who do have waivers), will have no issue (barring additional medical circumstances) getting to their designated SNA or NFO slot. It looks like the NAMI concern is separate, and for individuals already in the aviation program.

I'm curious how this lines up with exNavyOffRec comments about NAMI giving an ok later on.

I have a bit of anecdotal insight on the waiver process specifically for flight-disqualifying conditions. The reference for all disqualifying conditions is the U.S. Navy Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, which gives the reason why each is a disqualifying condition and then what considerations will be given for granting waivers (https://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmotc/nami/arwg/Documents/WaiverGuide/Complete_Waiver_Guide.pdf ).
I may have been putting the cart in front of the horse a little bit, but I know that my dad's side of the family is a carrier for Beta Thalassemia (blood disease that has similar traits to sickle cell and other anemic conditions), so I went ahead and got a full flight physical to 1. see if I had Beta-Thal, and 2. make sure that I could actually get a waiver for it if I had it, because why go through all the trouble of busting my ass to finish my degree in a year if it would be all for naught when they shot down my package for a disqualifying medical condition? Ultimately, the flight physical did verify that I have Beta Thalassemia minor--asymptomatic, and the flight surgeon handled submission of my waiver.

The waiver went to NAMI for the BUMED endorsement, but they are not the actually approving authority for the waivers; that authority lies with BUPERS. As you can see from my letters, NAMI only gave a recommendation for commissioning and duty involving flying based on their expertise of the USN Aeromedical guide, citing the specific medical conditions under which my waiver would remain valid. If you look at the BUPERS letter, they specifically reference the NAMI letter and gave the final determination.

The problem with the basic "commissioning physical" that they do (and I'm assuming the MEPS physical is the same for officer recruits) is that they aren't necessarily looking at everything through the lens of the the USN Aeromedical guide, only that you are generally fit for commissioning. So in my specific scenario, let's hypothetically say I didn't get the flight physical a year ago. I would have gone to medical here on base and had my commissioning physical completed. Then I send off my OCS application, get accepted, then get the actual flight physical later on. During the flight physical they find out that I have B-Thal, but I don't meet the minimum numbers to be eligible for a waiver in accordance with the Aeromedical guide. Then in that case NAMI doesn't recommend or endorse me for a waiver.... NAMI whammy'ed.

So what I gather from the 11% attrition rate or whatever number was cited, is that people are signed off purportedly "fit for commissioning," but then get the flight physical and some previously unknown medical condition surfaces and gets the candidate disqualified from aviation. What I don't understand is why the Navy doesn't do a more comprehensive physical up front to determine what may be an issue for specific communities.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I have a bit of anecdotal insight on the waiver process specifically for flight-disqualifying conditions. The reference for all disqualifying conditions is the U.S. Navy Aeromedical Reference and Waiver Guide, which gives the reason why each is a disqualifying condition and then what considerations will be given for granting waivers (https://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmotc/nami/arwg/Documents/WaiverGuide/Complete_Waiver_Guide.pdf ).
I may have been putting the cart in front of the horse a little bit, but I know that my dad's side of the family is a carrier for Beta Thalassemia (blood disease that has similar traits to sickle cell and other anemic conditions), so I went ahead and got a full flight physical to 1. see if I had Beta-Thal, and 2. make sure that I could actually get a waiver for it if I had it, because why go through all the trouble of busting my ass to finish my degree in a year if it would be all for naught when they shot down my package for a disqualifying medical condition? Ultimately, the flight physical did verify that I have Beta Thalassemia minor--asymptomatic, and the flight surgeon handled submission of my waiver.

The waiver went to NAMI for the BUMED endorsement, but they are not the actually approving authority for the waivers; that authority lies with BUPERS. As you can see from my letters, NAMI only gave a recommendation for commissioning and duty involving flying based on their expertise of the USN Aeromedical guide, citing the specific medical conditions under which my waiver would remain valid. If you look at the BUPERS letter, they specifically reference the NAMI letter and gave the final determination.

The problem with the basic "commissioning physical" that they do (and I'm assuming the MEPS physical is the same for officer recruits) is that they aren't necessarily looking at everything through the lens of the the USN Aeromedical guide, only that you are generally fit for commissioning. So in my specific scenario, let's hypothetically say I didn't get the flight physical a year ago. I would have gone to medical here on base and had my commissioning physical completed. Then I send off my OCS application, get accepted, then get the actual flight physical later on. During the flight physical they find out that I have B-Thal, but I don't meet the minimum numbers to be eligible for a waiver in accordance with the Aeromedical guide. Then in that case NAMI doesn't recommend or endorse me for a waiver.... NAMI whammy'ed.

So what I gather from the 11% attrition rate or whatever number was cited, is that people are signed off purportedly "fit for commissioning," but then get the flight physical and some previously unknown medical condition surfaces and gets the candidate disqualified from aviation. What I don't understand is why the Navy doesn't do a more comprehensive physical up front to determine what may be an issue for specific communities.View attachment 27429View attachment 27430

MEPS won't go that deep, they look at basic military standards, ones that are the same for each service, it is up to the service to dig deeper if they want, so MEPS doesn't even do a commissioning physical, just a basic one.

The reason they don't do a flight physical before a person goes to OCS is money, it just isn't cost effective given the low number of those that don't make it through the flight physical.

You are also in a unique situation that doesn't apply to 90% of the people here, and that is you are already in the USN, that means the waiver standards are different for you than someone that is a civilian or for someone that is prior service that did not affiliate with the reserves or is outside their MSO, if you were a civilian with the same issue you may have been told "no".