Would Like CLarification on Intel requirements and OCS

[SilGuz]

My question concerns the application requirements for OCS and also the Intelligence community.

I have spent much time reading past threads, however, have come across information that others have argued to be inaccurate. Please, I would really appreciate responses from those who are not guessing or "think" they are right. I don't mean to be rude but this is really important to me and I am tired of being told wrong information.

I am in the process of applying for OCS and am only interested in becoming a Naval Intelligence Officer. The recruiters I have worked with have not been very helpful in providing me accurate information. I was told by two recruiters, for example, that Intel was closed to be because my father is not a U.S. citizen (he is a permanent resident) and would not be able to get a top security clearance because of it. I now know this to be false. From the Security Policy Advisor, Director of Naval Intelligence, "There is no blanket policy that prohibits individuals with non-US citizen family members from joining Navy intel. However, depending upon the country in question, there may be additional requirements to determine the benefit to the Navy vs the risk associated with the foreign association."

Anyways, I have read threads where perspective OCS and Intel candidates have discussed their application package. Judging by what I have read, I am not sure if my recruiter(s) are setting me up for failure.

Here are my questions:
1. According to my recruiter, while it can enhance the application package, an interview with an officer is not necessary. Is this correct?
2. For the ASTB, since I am not trying to be a pilot or NFO, I only need to take the OAR. Is this true? I have taken the ASTB once and my recruiter had me take only the OAR portion.
3. There isn't a set date for a board that will be looking at Intel applicants. Is this true?
4. My recruiter gave me a limit of 400 words for the motivational statement. Is this word cap ok? I already wrote mine but would really like to include a few more things that would probably increase it to 500.

Sorry for the long intro. I just want to be clear that I really have tried searching answers to these questions but I question the accuracy of information from certain sources.

I would really appreciate any advice and information regarding the application process for OCS and requirements for Intel. I know that a good score on the ASTB, atleast 3 LOR, transcripts, motivational statement, and resume are necessary for the application. Thank you for your time and hope to hear from someone at their best convenience.

 

[OnTopTime]

How the hell are you going to know whether the information that you get from unverified sources on an internet forum is accurate or not? The recruiters are the experts. The answers you have been getting may not be what you want to hear. Too bad. If they see your application as overly complicated or not especially competitive, they will concentrate on the low-hanging fruit, especially with an abundance of qualified applicants knocking on the door.

 

[SilGuz]

Wow, like I didn’t see that one coming. You must think you really managed to make me feel stupid for asking those questions. Kind of like that one person who stated that they wanted to be a pilot in the Air Force and didn’t know if he need to see a recruiter from the other branches in order to start the application process. Don’t know what or who I’m talking about? Look it up. You wasted your precious time reading my message and responding to it. I’m sure you’ll manage to figure out what I’m talking about.
Here’s the thing, some of the “answers” I have been getting from “experts” have been proven to be false. And not by “unverified sources” from people such as yourself but from the office of the Director of Naval Intelligence. Why am I not asking this same source questions? Well, they are not recruiters and I much rather get an answer, even if it is a very informative response like yours is, from people who may happen to know the correct answer then to pester people whose time is really important and limited. Not that I’m trying to say that the time of everyone else is unimportant (I seriously hope that those reading this message don’t interpret my comment in a negative way). And seriously, do you really think that if I don’t trust these “experts” that you speak of, I would easily take someone else’s response as fact without finding evidence to support it before accepting it and confronting these “experts” about it?
Anyone else? I will tell you right now though I am not going to continue wasting my time justifying myself to people who wish to make me feel stupid and discourage me. Only I know the circumstances of the situation. Either you know the answers and are kind enough to respond or you can continue providing great responses like “OnTopTime” did.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Anyone else? I will tell you right now though I am not going to continue wasting my time justifying myself to people who wish to make me feel stupid and discourage me. Only I know the circumstances of the situation. Either you know the answers and are kind enough to respond or you can continue providing great responses like “OnTopTime” did.

Obviously you haven't really searched the site for answers or you would know just how well this type of attitude goes over.....

Good luck and don't forget to duck.

 

[KBayDog]

Sil,
You posted Intel questions on a Naval Aviation forum. If you are not pleased with the quality of the responses to your questions, please seek your answers elsewhere, and good luck with your search.

If you would like to continue to be an active member of AirWarriors, I invite you to observe the NFO wings under OnTopTime's avatar. On this forum, avatars with such insignia indicate that the member is a Naval Flight Officer. You will also see wings for Aviators (from all services), Air Crewmen, etc.

OnTopTime, as an officer, has earned his NFO wings in "real life," and has them as part of his AW avatar. Now, what you choose to do with that information is up to you, but I just thought you should know that many of the responses you receive from members of this forum come from officers in the military in which you are seeking a commission.

Again, best of luck with your application process.

 

[OnTopTime]

And seriously, do you really think that if I don’t trust these “experts” that you speak of, I would easily take someone else’s response as fact without finding evidence to support it before accepting it and confronting these “experts” about it?

So you're going to 1) solicit information of unknown veracity from members of this forum, and then 2) find evidence to support any information provided so that you can 3) confront the recruiters that you believe have given you bad gouge. Instead of wasting your time (and ours) posting here, why not just go directly to step 2 and do some independent research? That covers the first point in my post above.

My second point was that if the recruiters you spoke with thought you were a competitive intel applicant and they had slots to fill, they would have been more interested in getting you started with the application process. For whatever reason, it sounds like they don't want to pay much attention to you, and you feel like you're getting the brush off. I'm familiar with Navy officer recruiting; I did it for the Navy Reserve for almost six years and processed more than a few intel packages. Some applicants are very competitive, others not so much. Some of the non-competitive applicants will listen to an explanation of why they're not competitive and understand why the recruiter can't or won't start the application process. Others refuse to listen and can't believe that they're not the best thing that ever walked into the recruiter's office. The recruiters have a job to do and a large part of their performance evaluation is based on whether or not assigned goals are being met. The smart ones will not waste their time on non-competitive applicants. While recruiters should be honest and courteous to interested people who don't fit the bill, it's not their job to blow sunshine up your ass.

 

[xxxCharliexxx]

SilGuz,

I'm going to post a response to you in hopes that you will listen to it...as I am quite certain from the lip service going on here, you won't listen to anything OnTopTime says, regardless of it's true nature.

OTT is correct. Recruiters were tasked with "pre-selecting" applicants a couple of years ago when the quantity of quality applicants went through the roof. Their first job when you walk into their office is to determine, based off the series of questions I'm sure you were asked, if you were a viable candidate that would sustain the ENTIRE commissioning process (not just the ability to put together an Intel package to the board) - that includes the ability to receive and sustain a clearance. This was done for several reasons...The top two being 1) So the applicants don't waste a year of their life gathering data, documents, interviews, etc when they will never be selected and, 2) So it would cut down on the number of applications the board had to sift through when most were not viable, competitive candidates in the first place.

It sounds like you went through such a process and your recruiter deemed it unworthy to have you proceed with a lengthy process when he/she considered your application uncompetitive or that you lacked the ability to sustain a security clearance. Regardless, it's for your own benefit that they do this. Please try to understand this. It's not the end of the road for you, but as the competition decreases and/or you use your time wisely to increase the competitiveness of your application, then try the pre-selection process again.

To answer your previous questions:
1) No. An officer interview is required. An interview and positive endorsement from the RIPO (they call him something else now) is also a requirement.
2) The OAR is sufficient for Officer positions. It includes a spatial apperception portion regardless of desired position. But the full ASTB never killed anyone to my knowledge.
3) The dates scheduled for Intel (IDC) boards - your recruiter should have this information.
4) To my knowledge, the old format required a 400 word limit on the motivational statement. This has since been removed. Tread carefully though, it was removed to determine whether the applicants had the ability to say what they needed to say in a CONCISE manner without having a limitation.

Good luck and be careful getting all bushy tailed in here (that too is advice for your benefit),
Charlie

 

[LSJU]

My $0.02 worth...

SilGuz, you seem to have a bit of a confrontational and combative approach to this process. My guess is that's not going to serve you well. The OCS process is long, winding and unpredictible. You need patience, diligence, faith and a good bit of luck to negotiate it successfully. My advice is to lower the tenor of your approach. You'll attract many more flies with honey than vinegar.

And, for what its worth, I agree with everything Charlie said above.

And, finally, I too am a pending applicant for an Intel designator. My application didn't get submitted in time for the cancelled April board and, as result, even though it was in well before the stated deadline, won't be considered by the board convening next week. I'm told not to expect another Intel board until April. But, as with anything involving the OCS process, things can (and probably will) change. So you're best to keep in touch with your OR, polish your kit as best you can, keep an eye on the forums (this one, NavyOCS and the New York recruiter's blog are my favorites) and keep your fingers crossed.

 

[SilGuz]

Charlie and LSJU, thank you for the information. Greatly appreciate it.​

Respectfully,

Gulzar