• 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 28JUN21

E

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
shunshin014 said:
Hello, this was posted few hours ago. Maybe someone knows how to interpret the numbers to the rest of the hopeful.

thank you.
Click to expand...
  • OCS shipping goal is who they need to arrive at OCS for that designator
  • Board selection goal is the number the board will pick to ensure the above is met, this is over due to people picking other selection choice or other reason.
  • Candidates shipped to OCS, just as it says, of course that should be FY22 not FY21
  • Applicants pro rec for FY 22 would be those who are selected by board and scheduled for an FY 22 commission class. I would say a decent number are those who were pushed into FY22 due to COVID.
  • FY22 remaining select this is how many spots are left, this is an estimate until hard goals come out in Dec to Jan.
  • FY22 board select goal per board is just how many they want the board to select from each board ****note 1
  • Max 1st and 2nd choice per board. ****note 2
  • Current 1st and 2nd choice awaiting board. ****note 2
  • Max 1st and 2nd choice for year. ****note 2

If red don't bother applying they will probably reject or pro X the application, if you see one that is yellow that is almost full and they will often not allow waivers.

Note 1 - this was tried a long time ago and essentially didn't go well, the whole "best qualified" thing becomes the "who gets there first" thing, they fixed it by not putting a cap per board on number of applications and telling the boards to "not exceed" a specific number (sometimes that didn't work).
Note 2 - notice this doesn't mention 3rd choice so kind of misleading on numbers. This also goes against the best qualified mantra of selections, often they are not hard and fast but more guidelines.
 
E

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
shunshin014 said:
Hello, this was posted few hours ago. Maybe someone knows how to interpret the numbers to the rest of the hopeful.

thank you.
Click to expand...
also, if you look at CWE you will notice they are way short of goal, that is a designator that would rather miss goal than take someone that isn't "best qualified".
 
Creeping_Geep

Creeping_Geep

Well-Known Member
exNavyOffRec said:
Note 1 - this was tried a long time ago and essentially didn't go well, the whole "best qualified" thing becomes the "who gets there first" thing, they fixed it by not putting a cap per board on number of applications and telling the boards to "not exceed" a specific number (sometimes that didn't work).
Note 2 - notice this doesn't mention 3rd choice so kind of misleading on numbers. This also goes against the best qualified mantra of selections, often they are not hard and fast but more guidelines.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason why first choice kits shouldn't supplant second choice kits? Other than increased administrative burden, of course.
 
E

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
Creeping_Geep said:
Is there a reason why first choice kits shouldn't supplant second choice kits? Other than increased administrative burden, of course.
Click to expand...
A person may be more qualified for their 2nd choice than the 1st choice, and then that does go toward the board being able to select the best qualified individual.

The application for civilians has 5 spots, now realistically the most you typically see is 3 filled out.

It is also more likely for a person to get picked for 1st or 2nd vice third choice.
 
S

shunshin014

Member
exNavyOffRec said:
  • OCS shipping goal is who they need to arrive at OCS for that designator
  • Board selection goal is the number the board will pick to ensure the above is met, this is over due to people picking other selection choice or other reason.
  • Candidates shipped to OCS, just as it says, of course that should be FY22 not FY21
  • Applicants pro rec for FY 22 would be those who are selected by board and scheduled for an FY 22 commission class. I would say a decent number are those who were pushed into FY22 due to COVID.
  • FY22 remaining select this is how many spots are left, this is an estimate until hard goals come out in Dec to Jan.
  • FY22 board select goal per board is just how many they want the board to select from each board ****note 1
  • Max 1st and 2nd choice per board. ****note 2
  • Current 1st and 2nd choice awaiting board. ****note 2
  • Max 1st and 2nd choice for year. ****note 2
If red don't bother applying they will probably reject or pro X the application, if you see one that is yellow that is almost full and they will often not allow waivers.

Note 1 - this was tried a long time ago and essentially didn't go well, the whole "best qualified" thing becomes the "who gets there first" thing, they fixed it by not putting a cap per board on number of applications and telling the boards to "not exceed" a specific number (sometimes that didn't work).
Note 2 - notice this doesn't mention 3rd choice so kind of misleading on numbers. This also goes against the best qualified mantra of selections, often they are not hard and fast but more guidelines.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. :)

-I checked the Mar 21 IP results, and there were 9 FY22 Selectees, and if I am not mistaken, 1 fell out after the interview for their clearance, so that is the 8 Pro Rec Y for FY 22. It makes me think that the numbers are flexible since we are still in FY21, and the board is taking quotas from FY22. Then if their numbers did not go right then, it would fall to your NOTE 1.


-If they follow the FY22 30 Board Select per board, this IP board with 53 applicants has a good acceptance percentage. However, I wonder if the IP board coordinated with the Intel board because there are applicants who put IP and Intel as their 1st and 2nd choice. If the boards convened simultaneously, they could have picked the best applicants they deem fit for their designators. Still, since the boards are split, applicants are waiting for the next board for Intel.

-Too bad for the INTEL only folks, the boards are full until the March 22 board.

Just my thoughts..
 
E

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
shunshin014 said:
Thank you for your answer. :)

-I checked the Mar 21 IP results, and there were 9 FY22 Selectees, and if I am not mistaken, 1 fell out after the interview for their clearance, so that is the 8 Pro Rec Y for FY 22. It makes me think that the numbers are flexible since we are still in FY21, and the board is taking quotas from FY22. Then if their numbers did not go right then, it would fall to your NOTE 1.


-If they follow the FY22 30 Board Select per board, this IP board with 53 applicants has a good acceptance percentage. However, I wonder if the IP board coordinated with the Intel board because there are applicants who put IP and Intel as their 1st and 2nd choice. If the boards convened simultaneously, they could have picked the best applicants they deem fit for their designators. Still, since the boards are split, applicants are waiting for the next board for Intel.

-Too bad for the INTEL only folks, the boards are full until the March 22 board.

Just my thoughts..
Click to expand...
For OCS purposes FY 21 ended late June, for board selection purposes FY 21 ended between March and May depending on the designator, in general anyone picked in a March or later board will be for the next FY, the later in March and then into April the more accurate that is.

The NRC board selection goal column has the same numbers as last year, this is because they don't have FY 22 goals yet, once those come in then the other column will be adjusted, numbers will adjust depending on the numbers NROTC and USNA graduates and the designators they go into. The larger designators like SWO, SNA and SNFO usually see minimal changes, the smaller designators can see bigger changes (by percent), a 20 person swing in IP, CW, or Intel can be significant, and since they have already filled Intel if they have midshipmen who can't commission URL they have less flexibility in Intel so the extra would go to another designator.

Given what is now know about Intel it makes sense they split the board, it would give them time to pick out those last remaining spots and then take the ones they still like and review them for IP and CW.
 
S

shunshin014

Member
exNavyOffRec said:
For OCS purposes FY 21 ended late June, for board selection purposes FY 21 ended between March and May depending on the designator, in general anyone picked in a March or later board will be for the next FY, the later in March and then into April the more accurate that is.

The NRC board selection goal column has the same numbers as last year, this is because they don't have FY 22 goals yet, once those come in then the other column will be adjusted, numbers will adjust depending on the numbers NROTC and USNA graduates and the designators they go into. The larger designators like SWO, SNA and SNFO usually see minimal changes, the smaller designators can see bigger changes (by percent), a 20 person swing in IP, CW, or Intel can be significant, and since they have already filled Intel if they have midshipmen who can't commission URL they have less flexibility in Intel so the extra would go to another designator.

Given what is now know about Intel it makes sense they split the board, it would give them time to pick out those last remaining spots and then take the ones they still like and review them for IP and CW.
Click to expand...
I see. Now that you mentioned this it makes sense (including USNA & NROTC) and could be a mess like manning on ships if they overshot/underestimated their numbers. Manning on ships is another trash needed to be sorted though.
 
S

shunshin014

Member
I don't think IP and CW are coming out today but here are the list for OCEANO and SWO-OCEANO. Congratulations.

My guess is there must be some intense deliberation on the remaining designators since the board adjourned 2 weeks ago.
 

Attachments

  • OCEANO Jul 2021.pdf
    622.3 KB · Views: 78
  • SWO-OCEANO Jul 2021.pdf
    478.4 KB · Views: 55
B

Bigg

Pro Rec IP
To those who weren't selected, chin up y'all. Keep working at it, and you'll eventually get selected.

To those who were selected congratulations!!!
 

Attachments

  • FY21 July CW Professional Recommendation Board Results.pdf
    53.3 KB · Views: 53
  • FY21 July IP Professional Recommendation Board Results.pdf
    50.4 KB · Views: 62
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top