What NRC considers competitive

[exNavyOffRec]

Just got the ball rolling. Haven't taken OARS yet but that'll come. Initial contact with the recruiter today and he said everything looks good so far.

27 this year (not looking to fly, so no worries)
Army ROTC experience, but decided not to commission
Undergrad: Chinese, minor in Russian, 3.45 GPA
Post-grad: Master's in International Business, 3.56 GPA
Spent 3 years in China, one finishing my Master's, the other two working in consulting
Speak Chinese, know a little Russian
Eagle Scout, Bronze Palm, Senior Patrol Leader for a year
Risk Manager of my fraternity
In addition to my day job I travel as a third party auditor for quality management systems

Looking to go intelligence, but I'm a bit confused since I thought Intel was the same as IWO but after searching the site I think I'm more confused. Is IWO more influential on combat missions and "Intel" is SIGINT, cyber, counter Intel? I understand both have significant desk type jobs, but it's always interested me. Either way I'd be looking at the IWC boards, right?

Looking over the site I think a 50 would make me competitive for intelligence given the "whole package" approach, but am I wrong in that assumption? Would SWO as my second be a solid backup?

Looking forward to hearing from y'all as well as my recruiter.

Your GPA is average compared to those selected, Intel tends to select mostly non-stem, CWO tends to pick all stem with the occasional non stem, officers don't go into the field and don't do translation.

The IWC officers I put in mostly all ended up behind a desk, sometimes overseas with a squadron, then stateside. One of the CWO I put in served his entire 4 years stateside at a NIOC.

A plus is your graduate degree.

If you want to be a USN officer put SWO as your second choice, IWC has a very low selection rate, if you factor in that most of the selections are STEM and that most of the submissions are non-STEM that chance gets even lower.

 

[42Zulu]

I understand that I wouldn't be doing translation, nor do I want to do that, but would you not value international experience much in a packet, especially for Intel?

I feel like I "made up for" my BA by getting my Master's, but I basically got a degree in Chinese language, said "I'm going to use this instead of flip burgers," and then spent 3 years in the country, got a post grad degree, and did urban development consulting at a Big 4 firm. Would this be something to show motivation or drive, then, if anything? I was told by a couple contacts in the intelligence community that understanding China's commerce and actually having boots on the ground experience working in that environment would be wanted.

I completely see your point and understand, I'm just trying to work with what I have I guess and how I could market it best.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I understand that I wouldn't be doing translation, nor do I want to do that, but would you not value international experience much in a packet, especially for Intel?

I feel like I "made up for" my BA by getting my Master's, but I basically got a degree in Chinese language, said "I'm going to use this instead of flip burgers," and then spent 3 years in the country, got a post grad degree, and did urban development consulting at a Big 4 firm. Would this be something to show motivation or drive, then, if anything? I was told by a couple contacts in the intelligence community that understanding China's commerce and actually having boots on the ground experience working in that environment would be wanted.

I completely see your point and understand, I'm just trying to work with what I have I guess and how I could market it best.

If any of my IWC selects spent time overseas it was not memorable enough for me to recall, the things they all had in common were high GPA, tech degrees, and none I recall put down they spoke any foreign language.

The Intel officers I knew all did evaluation and then briefings based on data they rec'd. I am sure your experience would be helpful eventually, if the USN needs you to know things they will send you to a school to learn it, then they know your actual level of knowledge. They don't know if your knowledge is better than someone who spent 10 years learning and living in China or worse then someone spent 1 year over there, so how can they really give much weight to it?

There is a difference in what a 3 letter agency wants and what the USN needs, and even then those 3 letter agencies are not necessarily looking for what people think, I had a top tier University in my area for career fairs, when the CIA would go to the career fairs I would ask them who they were looking for, it was always engineers, they said they could learn just about anything and they needed people that could do analytical thinking, they wouldn't even take resumes of anyone else.

I would put Intel first and SWO second, with a non tech degree Intel would be your best shot to get into IWC, SWO would be your best shot to get into the USN.

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

[

I understand that I wouldn't be doing translation, nor do I want to do that, but would you not value international experience much in a packet, especially for Intel?

I feel like I "made up for" my BA by getting my Master's, but I basically got a degree in Chinese language, said "I'm going to use this instead of flip burgers," and then spent 3 years in the country, got a post grad degree, and did urban development consulting at a Big 4 firm. Would this be something to show motivation or drive, then, if anything? I was told by a couple contacts in the intelligence community that understanding China's commerce and actually having boots on the ground experience working in that environment would be wanted.

I completely see your point and understand, I'm just trying to work with what I have I guess and how I could market it best.

For every IWC/Intel applicant that has told me "I have international experience" there's probably at least a dozen more out there.

STEM is the name of the game. Unless you're prior enlisted with IWC experience you are at a disadvantage at getting accepted. To add on to what @NavyOffRec said I would encourage SUPPLY/SWO as your choices (removing IWC completely) if your overall goal is to be an officer.

Your background lines up more with supply corps followed by SWO.

 

[Hair Warrior]

There is a difference in what a 3 letter agency wants and what the USN needs, and even then those 3 letter agencies are not necessarily looking for what people think, I had a top tier University in my area for career fairs, when the CIA would go to the career fairs I would ask them who they were looking for, it was always engineers, they said they could learn just about anything and they needed people that could do analytical thinking, they wouldn't even take resumes of anyone else.

Mostly true... although CIA's penchant for hiring engineers has come back to bite them in the six. Turns out engineers are sometimes great at mechanical problem-solving, but more often terrible at meeting with and reading other humans' behavior, verbal cues, body language. Good for technical exploitation & analysis. Not so good at clan HUMINT in shady locales. Some of the "top" CIA DO recruits go on to have long, safe, boring careers where they recruit precisely nobody to spy for the US because their entire lives pre-CIA have been led as risk-averse bookworms who have never had a stranger buy them a drink at a bar. Or, if they are really hot stuff in training and/or speak a desired language, they get sent to run ops in a hard target country where they get spotted immediately by FIE and PNG'd within a couple years (or just hang at the embassy to avoid being caught).

I concur that CIA DO needs are nearly 180 degrees opposite of ONI/Navy/JIOC intel officer needs, so it's not apples to apples. (Navy enlisted IS's and CT's are a diff story.)

Anyway, I digress. STEM is great for intel, but it's not an end-all be-all. At the end of the day, the intelligence product needs to be shared with policymakers & warfighters in a clear, concise, compelling report. Engineers who aren't also strong writers may struggle. Writing is more important for all-source than for single discipline analysts, but it's still important. I am semi surprised how many intel offices keep a full time "technical editor" on hand to correct spelling and grammar errors made by the line analysts. I guess that's the fix for STEM-focused analytic staff.

End rant. NavyOffRec and Rufio's advice on what Navy intel is looking for is 100% on point.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Mostly true... although CIA's penchant for hiring engineers has come back to bite them in the six. Turns out engineers are sometimes great at mechanical problem-solving, but more often terrible at meeting with and reading other humans' behavior, verbal cues, body language. Good for technical exploitation & analysis. Not so good at clan HUMINT in shady locales. Some of the "top" CIA DO recruits go on to have long, safe, boring careers where they recruit precisely nobody to spy for the US because their entire lives pre-CIA have been led as risk-averse bookworms who have never had a stranger buy them a drink at a bar. Or, if they are really hot stuff in training and/or speak a desired language, they get sent to run ops in a hard target country where they get spotted immediately by FIE and PNG'd within a couple years (or just hang at the embassy to avoid being caught).

I concur that CIA DO needs are nearly 180 degrees opposite of ONI/Navy/JIOC intel officer needs, so it's not apples to apples. (Navy enlisted IS's and CT's are a diff story.)

Anyway, I digress. STEM is great for intel, but it's not an end-all be-all. At the end of the day, the intelligence product needs to be shared with policymakers & warfighters in a clear, concise, compelling report. Engineers who aren't also strong writers may struggle. Writing is more important for all-source than for single discipline analysts, but it's still important. I am semi surprised how many intel offices keep a full time "technical editor" on hand to correct spelling and grammar errors made by the line analysts. I guess that's the fix for STEM-focused analytic staff.

End rant. NavyOffRec and Rufio's advice on what Navy intel is looking for is 100% on point.

I didn't say they weren't hiring them, to be kind to the person that I was quoting I left off the other part of what the CIA recruiters said, it was they they were only actively recruiting engineers because non tech degrees, linguist, and other non-engineers applied constantly, per their words, "they are a dime a dozen" so they don't need to look for them as they go looking for the CIA.

I am by the way one of those non-tech dime a dozen degree holders

The non-STEM degree holders apply in much greater numbers to the USN IWC as well, that is why the overall results for those applying to IDC is misleading, yes they go for a 60/40 split, but as an example 60% of 100 tech applications is much better than 40% of 200 non-tech applications

 

[Hair Warrior]

I am one of those non-STEM undergrad degree USN IWC officer applicants as well. Dime a dozen indeed!

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

I didn't say they weren't hiring them, to be kind to the person that I was quoting I left off the other part of what the CIA recruiters said, it was they they were only actively recruiting engineers because non tech degrees, linguist, and other non-engineers applied constantly, per their words, "they are a dime a dozen" so they don't need to look for them as they go looking for the CIA.

I am by the way one of those non-tech dime a dozen degree holders

The non-STEM degree holders apply in much greater numbers to the USN IWC as well, that is why the overall results for those applying to IDC is misleading, yes they go for a 60/40 split, but as an example 60% of 100 tech applications is much better than 40% of 200 non-tech applications

That 60/40 is creeping more towards 70/30, especially from the most recent December AC IWC board.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

That 60/40 is creeping more towards 70/30, especially from the most recent December AC IWC board.

not surprised.....

 

[42Zulu]

Thanks for the insight. I guess it's a bit ironic that those saying only STEM are not STEM, but I digress.

With a better than average OAR score, leadership experience, and a Master's, it seems like I can make a competitive package. International experience is nice but what I'm hearing is that I should highlight things other than that, which is what I was curious about. Appreciate it!

 

[TheFlyingViking]

Greetings!!! I just submitted an officer packet for SNA and I want anyone's opinion on my chances of getting selected for the January board!

I got a 52 on the ASTB
I scored a 6/7/6

I have a TON of community service including nursing home visitation, helping the community in general. I also have years of leadership experience which I detailed in my motivational statement including being elected president of the largest mens society at my college.

The BAD news is that I have a 2.57 GPA (Due to goofing off on the beach freshman and sophomore year of college. I spent Junior and Senior year repairing the damage.)

I look forward to hearing from all of you! Thank you and have a great new year!!

 

[Hair Warrior]

Thanks for the insight. I guess it's a bit ironic that those saying only STEM are not STEM, but I digress.

To put it in perspective: After OCS, USN intel has 5 months in Dam Neck plus 2 years OJT to teach you the basic skill set to support end-to-end intelligence cycle activities. They cannot, however, afford to spend time teaching everybody remedial calculus, physics, or engineering in order for Navy intel O's to better understand collection/ processing/ exploitation of technical systems (and leading 1-4 enlisted members to do those tasks). You will likely either be expected to be a self-starter in doing technically complex work without much help, or your team will be looking to you to provide at least some of the answers/value-add.

That said, you always have a non-zero chance to get selected if you apply. If you want it, go for it, and keep improving/ following your OR's advice.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Greetings!!! I just submitted an officer packet for SNA and I want anyone's opinion on my chances of getting selected for the January board!

I got a 52 on the ASTB
I scored a 6/7/6

I have a TON of community service including nursing home visitation, helping the community in general. I also have years of leadership experience which I detailed in my motivational statement including being elected president of the largest mens society at my college.

The BAD news is that I have a 2.57 GPA (Due to goofing off on the beach freshman and sophomore year of college. I spent Junior and Senior year repairing the damage.)

I look forward to hearing from all of you! Thank you and have a great new year!!

What the board will put almost all the weight in, your ASTB and your GPA, it is nice that you do the volunteer work but they don't really care about that.

 

[Mxdamien]

Good Morning Everyone,
I had a general question, may be a stupid one so forgive me. For NFO, I know the "competitive" gpa standards are not as high as they are for SNA. With that being said, if you apply for an air slot and have a low college GPA "2.5-2.75" would they automatically consider you for NFO and not SNA assuming your ASTBE scores are within competitive standards for both SNA and NFO due to your low GPA?
Thank You
r/s

 

[LET73]

To put it in perspective: After OCS, USN intel has 5 months in Dam Neck plus 2 years OJT to teach you the basic skill set to support end-to-end intelligence cycle activities. They cannot, however, afford to spend time teaching everybody remedial calculus, physics, or engineering in order for Navy intel O's to better understand collection/ processing/ exploitation of technical systems (and leading 1-4 enlisted members to do those tasks). You will likely either be expected to be a self-starter in doing technically complex work without much help, or your team will be looking to you to provide at least some of the answers/value-add.

In nine years as an intel officer, the Navy has never asked me to do anything technically complex... which is fortunate for everyone, since I'm another of those dime a dozen non-STEM types. It's a different story for the cryppies and IP officers, but intel isn't necessarily a technical field. It can be, but it's not the primary focus of training and not really a requirement for most intel billets.