• 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

FY15 IDC DCO Boards

kh439

New Member
I'm just going to say hi, even though I still haven't heard back about FY14 yet haha. Might as well say hi now!
 

jimmyD690

New Member
First time poster.... I am still waiting on my results for the Sept FY14 board, but with only 38 people selected and 3 of them confirmed on the old thread... Thought I would go ahead and speak up
 

das

Well-Known Member
Contributor
SEP 2014 IDC PR highlights -- use this information to understand what the board is looking for.

A professional review board consisting of ten 1805/1815 / 1825/1830/1835 officers reviewed 235 packages, of which 47 were professionally recommended for commissioning.

The professional review board utilized a "best fit" approach when recommending candidates for the various Information Dominance Corps (IDC) designators. Based on this approach, a candidate may have been recommended for a designator which was not the candidate's primary community preference but the professional review board determined the presented skills were a better fit for the community for which they were ultimately recommended. Particular emphasis was also given to the "whole person" concept as well as demonstrated success with respect to coursework in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

Recommended applications for Oceanography (1805) possessed the following general attributes: quantifiable leadership/supervision (military/civilian), strong and well-written motivational statements, outstanding interviews and recommendations, specific relevant Meteorology and Oceanography educational background and experience.

Recommended applications for Information Warfare (1815) possessed the following general attributes: quantifiable leadership/supervision (military/ civilian), strong motivational/personal statement outstanding appraisals, letters of recommendation, related degree (particularly Hard Science, Engineering or Language), level of education, GPA, Information Warfare/IDC-related job experience, and security clearance eligibility.

Recommended applications for Information Professional (1825) possessed the following general attributes: quantifiable leadership/supervision (military/civilian), advanced technical degrees (particularly STEM related), Information Technology/IDC-related work experience (Radio Frequency (RF) technology or Shipboard Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Inlelligence (C4I)), technical certifications (e.g. CISSP, Security+), security clearance eligibility, strong and well-written motivational statements, outstanding interviews and recommendations.

Recommended applications for Intelligence (1835) possessed the following general attributes: quantifiable leadership/supervision (military or civilian), advanced education (with emphasis on STEM related coursework), intelligence/IDC-related/analytical work experience, security clearance eligibility, strong and well-written motivational statements, outstanding interviews and recommendations.

Non-selected applications possessed one or more of the following general attributes: Weak or ambiguous IDC OIC endorsement, incomplete packages including lack of supporting documentation, less than outstanding panel interviews, lack of quantifiable leadership, lack of demonstrated strong educational performance (with emphasis on STEM-related coursework), demonstrated poor writing skills and civilian or military employment/skill set not applicable.

General professional review board observations/commissioning instructions:

a. The Professional Review noted a few applications did not meet minimum requirements as delineated in IDC Program Authorizations and other governing documents. Recruiters need to carefully scrutinize applicant packages for completeness, consistency and compliance.

b. The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance has directed a 60-40% hard science versus social science targeted accession mix of all new IDC accessions. Recruiters shall make every reasonable attempt to submit future candidates with preferred major fields of study associated with the achievement of information dominance to include, but not limited to, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

c. A strong emphasis should be placed on the candidate's education, professional experience/certifications, leadership experience/potential and strong motivational statements.

d. Candidates should clearly explain any adverse areas in their application. In such an incredibly competitive review process, any unexplained or ambiguous issues were generally not favorably considered for "best fit" within the "whole person" concept.

e. All candidates must meet the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704 eligibility standards for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and other controlled access program infor mation. Being a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another country is not necessarily disqualifying. Associated risks to national security will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Refer to Intelligence Community Policy Guidance Number 704.2.

1. Applicants who have immediate family members or other persons who are non-U.S. citizens to whom the subject is bound by affection or obligation with low, medium, and high tier country associations require strict adherence to Navy ICD 704 implementing policy for the processing for SCI Access Eligibility.

2. Due to the heightened risk related to national security, the Community Manager shall determine commissioning policy exception guidance for applicants with medium and high tier country associations based on compelling need and intelligence risk assessment, established manning and mission needs.

f. Although enlisted professionals are a rich resource from which to devel op future officers, candidates whose rates are not permanent or are completing their community's initial training requirements should not apply until initial training requirements are completed.

g. IDC Packages should be tailored to communities within the IDC for which the candidate is best suited based on their education, skill set and occupational experience.

h. All recommended prior service commissioned officers shall be commissioned at their last commissioned rank. Recruiters are instructed to reset time-in-grade clocks for any professionally recommended candidates that will be commissi oned in the grade of O-3 so as to not disadvantage or hinder the candidate's future promotion opportunities.

Specifics regarding candidates' scores or board deliberations will not be disclosed outside of the professional review membership. Candidates and recruiters are encouraged to consult with the local IDC Region OIC and OCEANO/IW/IP RC community leads to determine how to proceed/improve candidates' packages. The guiding documents for this PR were Program Authorizations 108A, 108B, 108C, and 108D. Candidates are discouraged from contacting the IDC (Active/Reserve) OCMs or professional review voting members and should request any information regarding the professional review process via their NRDs.

The next IDC DCO Professional Review will be held 16-20 March 2015. Interim guidance has been promulgated through CNRC PRODOCs checklist, COMIDCRESCOM DCO Recruiting SOP and September 2014 IDC DCO PR Precept. All IDC applicants require an IDC Reserve Region OIC endorsement or Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command (CNMOC) Operational Support Officer (OSO) endorsement.

All professionally recommended enlisted IDC candidates currently mobilized or identified for mobilization shall be commissioned after demobilization, irrespective of the fiscal year. Additionally, those candidates who have not previously mobilized in their current rate or are outside dwell or deferment period shall be required to fulfill directed community mobilization requirements prior to commissioning.

---

Other critical resources:
Board history:

SEP09 (first FY10 board) - 174 applicants. Selected 57 INTEL. (Last INTEL-only board.)
MAR10 (second FY10 board) - 278 applicants. Selected 31 INTEL, 11 IW, 13 IP, 0 OCEANO. (First joint IDC board.)
SEP10 (first FY11 board) - 262 applicants. Selected 41 INTEL, 10 IW, 5 IP, 2 OCEANO.
MAR11 (second FY11 board) - 283 applicants. Selected 40 INTEL, 10 IW, 6 IP, 0 OCEANO.
SEP11 (first FY12 board) - 348 applicants. Selected 55 INTEL, 12 IW, 7 IP, 0 OCEANO.
MAR12 (second FY12 board) - 243 applicants. Selected 59 INTEL, 8 IW, 9 IP, 1 OCEANO.
SEP12 (first FY13 board) - 285 applicants. Selected 54 INTEL, 6 IW, 5 IP, 0 OCEANO.
MAR13 (second FY13 board) - 234 applicants. Selected 53 INTEL, 7 IW, 5 IP, 1 OCEANO.
SEP13 (first FY14 board) - 196 applicants. Selected 50 INTEL, 8 IW, 6 IP, 2 OCEANO.
MAR14 (second FY14 board) - 190 applicants. Selected 40 INTEL, 8 IW, 9 IP, 0 OCEANO.
SEP14 (first FY15 board) - 235 applicants. Selected 38 INTEL, 4 IW, 3 IP, 2 OCEANO.
MAR15 (second FY15 board) - 16-20MAR15.
 

ChairWarrior

New Member
Missed out on the SEP 2o14 board, not giving up though. Will try to be more active on the forum instead of just lurking until March. Best of luck to all of you.
 

uabmedic

New Member
Das,

Just wanted to thank you for all of the info you pass along on these forums. I know I speak for hundreds of others when I say you're insight is invaluable to this often frustrating process.

-JS
 

uabmedic

New Member
Hi all,

Here's a summary of my packet, which will be submitted for the second time in March '15:

-BS with Honors in Intelligence Studies
-Strong resume with numerous examples of leadership capabilities.
-10/10 board appraisals.
-Outstanding OIC endorsement.
-Congressional LOR
-Rear Admiral LOR
- I should note that these are not "fluff" LOR's, but were written by individuals with direct knowledge of my previous performance and leadership.
-Two other strong LORs.
-Read/Write/Speak Arabic
-Strong, but concise, personal statement.

Here are the things that are (probably) going against me:
-Background is in medical.
-Not prior military.
-Degree is not STEM focused.

Honestly, I feel like I have put my best foot forward. That said, I am lucky to have an excellent OR - as opposed to the one before him who told me I was a non-select twice without actually ever submitting my packet. The new OR has agreed to work closely with me so I can make it even better. As always, I am very open to ideas, critiques, and suggestions.

Good luck to all,
JS
 
uabmedic,

Your information looks great on paper. There are lots of good qualities listed here. My only advice to you would be to keep working towards your goal to be a Naval Officer. If the March board does not go your way, I would suggest you look into Enlisted opportunities as a way to gain intelligence community experience and military experience. I had an appointment with an Enlisted recruiter set up before the September results were released, just in case.
 

uabmedic

New Member
uabmedic,

Your information looks great on paper. There are lots of good qualities listed here. My only advice to you would be to keep working towards your goal to be a Naval Officer. If the March board does not go your way, I would suggest you look into Enlisted opportunities as a way to gain intelligence community experience and military experience. I had an appointment with an Enlisted recruiter set up before the September results were released, just in case.


Appreciate the advice. Honestly, I have only briefly considered the enlisted route but I'm certainly not opposed to it. I'd be interested to hear what you find out from your recruiter.

-JS
 

ChairWarrior

New Member
Hello IDC types,

I realize we are quite a while off from March but I want to pose this question to all of you regarding preferences for the board. After a fair amount of research, I have come to the conclusion that I am slightly more interested in IW than INTEL. Why? Because it seems to have an operational aspect to it that is missing from pure INTEL. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the general feeling I'm getting is that you are more likely to not be strictly tied to a desk as an IWO on orders than you would be as INTEL.

Since the ultimate goal of being a reserve officer will be to someday pick up orders and deploy, this choice has a lot to do with what I might be doing while out on deployment/orders. I have been doing parable INTEL type work for close to 10 years now(Active Air Force/Civilian). I know enough to know I'd be confident in that role. Choosing IW would offer a new challenge and a new set of skills that I am eager to acquire. I would hardly be upset about getting picked up for INTEL, but IW seems like it would broaden horizons instead of expressly enhance the skills I already have.

And now the dilemma. The number of applicants selected for IW is abysmally low (as I'm sure you all know). On top of that, I do not entirely fit the mold (my degree is in Social Sciences, but I was formerly a Cryptologic Linguist in the Air Force and have high language scores). From what I've been told, every applicant who was selected last board listed only one preference (This is strictly RUMINT, but I do believe if you were picked up you generally got your first choice).

How reasonable would it be for me to apply for INTEL and then pursue IW once I'm in versus hoping for IW outright?
Are my inclinations towards IW unfounded? Does it really make that much of a difference?

Please sound off with whatever insight you have. I am really excited to make this all happen, but I want to be sure I'm taking the best course of action. Thanks in advance, this forum is a treasure trove for wide eyed applicants like me.
 

chihon fung

10131775
Is the process applying for IDC Reserves that same as Active Duty?
I am an Active Duty enlisted currently submitting for Intel OCS.
 

CajunShellback

Cajun Shellback
Well, this is my first post in a while - thought I'd introduce myself.

I am applying for the IDC community and am currently working on my Kit.

My background:
-Senior Reliability Engineer / NASA Contractor
-16 years in Military (Active Navy, Army Guard, NOW Navy Reserves)
-Navy Reserve, Master at Arms 1st class PO
-FY 2013 SOY NOSC Meridian
-Bachelor/Science - Information Technology
-2/3 Evals are Early Promotes
-Certifications: Kaizen, Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (NASA), Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional, Lean Manufacturing, Root cause analysis and several other professional training/certs.
-42 years old, will be 43 come the board.
-all passing PRT, last one was Excellent


Not sure what else to add or mention.... LOL

Any feedback, guidance, sharing or questions are welcome!!!!!!!
 

RaginCajun

Well-Known Member
Good Luck Cajun!

If I may ask, are you using a recruiter out of NOLA/Baton Rouge or Houston? Just curious. You can PM the reply if you want.
 

CajunShellback

Cajun Shellback
Hey Rajin!!!

LOL, actually my Recruiter is out of Starkville, MS. LDO/Security LTJG Holmes, Prior Marine and Chief Petty Officer (GMC).

He visits my NOSC on duty weekends, typically.

I live in Picayune, MS - near slidell. Most of everything though can be done via Email.
 
Top