So much for no "forced" Nukes...

[Spekkio]

2. Tanking the interview is not really an option. You could be relegated to choices lower on your list than subs/nuke SWO as a result of this. (And that seems to happen more often than not, at least in our perception).

Maybe, maybe not. There is a formula that Big Navy uses to meet their manning. So you tell the Admiral that you don't want to serve aboard a submarine, no way, no how... you could end up with a bottom choice, you could end up in your original community. It depends on a myriad of factors that are pointless to speculate about. What is for sure, though, is that if you have the kahunas to tell the Admiral that you don't want to serve aboard a submarine, that is one job that you won't be doing.

Also, remember that nuke training is voluntary. You can DOR. What's the worst that can happen then? You redesignate to something better? I would even take SWO over nuke.

I have yet to see anyone successfully DOR from the nuke program. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the nuke community is going to try their darndest to keep you.

Make sure you don't spend the bonus money if you plan on DOR'ing, just in case they want it back.

 

[C420sailor]

Make sure you don't spend the bonus money if you plan on DOR'ing, just in case they want it back.

Throw it in a high yield savings account and walk away with the interest...

 

[HAL Pilot]

I have yet to see anyone successfully DOR from the nuke program. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the nuke community is going to try their darndest to keep you.

DOR from Nuke - no. DOR from subs - yes.

As on former academy grad/squadron mate/NFO told me - it's easy to DOR from Nuke, you just don't study for the tests.....

 

[CommodoreMid]

I guess it's a non-issue for academy guys since yall have to do 5 years even if you go SWO, but I think the issue here is forcing people to stay beyond the minimum requirement. Since I did ROTC I was obligated to 4 years active, 4 reserve. The only way I could do that is to go SWO. I just wonder how it works in terms of forcing someone to serve a longer term. I know my junior year 2 guys the year ahead of me were picked up for NFO involuntarily. One guy got out of it for color-blindness and is a SUPPO, and the other guy who was medically qualified successfully argued they couldn't make him do what would effectively be 8 years active instead of 4 given the original ROTC contract. He got SWO in the end, his first choice.

 

[Spekkio]

it's easy to DOR from Nuke, you just don't study for the tests.....

The life of an academically struggling nuke is miserable. Spending 80 hours a week in the same classroom for 4 months at a minimum (earliest you can possibly fail the minimum two classes for them to consider outprocessing you), particularly when you don't want to be there in the first place, is not fun.

 

[HAL Pilot]

The life of an academically struggling nuke is miserable. Spending 80 hours a week in the same classroom for 4 months at a minimum (earliest you can possibly fail the minimum two classes for them to consider outprocessing you), particularly when you don't want to be there in the first place, is not fun.

My friend wanted to be a NFO. He called it "short term pain for long term goals".

 

[DanMa1156]

Maybe, maybe not. There is a formula that Big Navy uses to meet their manning. So you tell the Admiral that you don't want to serve aboard a submarine, no way, no how... you could end up with a bottom choice, you could end up in your original community. It depends on a myriad of factors that are pointless to speculate about. What is for sure, though, is that if you have the kahunas to tell the Admiral that you don't want to serve aboard a submarine, that is one job that you won't be doing.

I have yet to see anyone successfully DOR from the nuke program. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the nuke community is going to try their darndest to keep you.

Make sure you don't spend the bonus money if you plan on DOR'ing, just in case they want it back.

The way it's working here is you either had to be released by your first choice community or not get picked by them in the first place. Right now, we're at the point where communities have to release some people to give to subs and they move on without you, thus you end up with a selection lower on your preferences list, though many perceive this as a giant F YOU from the higher ups for tanking an interview. It may very well be, but the way its explained seems legitimate enough and in accordance to how they are doing it now, like the Marine selects that got put into the subs met with the senior Marine on the Yard, and so on and so forth.

 

[Hozer]

Well played, Spy...Well played.

 

[exhelodrvr]

I guess it's a non-issue for academy guys since yall have to do 5 years even if you go SWO, but I think the issue here is forcing people to stay beyond the minimum requirement. Since I did ROTC I was obligated to 4 years active, 4 reserve. The only way I could do that is to go SWO. I just wonder how it works in terms of forcing someone to serve a longer term. I know my junior year 2 guys the year ahead of me were picked up for NFO involuntarily. One guy got out of it for color-blindness and is a SUPPO, and the other guy who was medically qualified successfully argued they couldn't make him do what would effectively be 8 years active instead of 4 given the original ROTC contract. He got SWO in the end, his first choice.

They don't HAVE to release you from active duty, no matter what your obligation is.

 

[Cleonard19]

Edit: Deleted.

 

[Seafort]

DanMa,

I am not an Academy Mid. I posted this not only because it is an interesting talking point, but because I was assured I that there were no nuke draftees. Having known Mids from my NROTC unit who were indeed harangued into it, I was surprised to hear that. Hence the "So much for..." title choice.

And where I got it isn't really that important. If there was any OPSEC on it, by the time it got to me, it was long since violated. Suffice to say it was already thoroughly in the grapevine, which is how I came upon it.

An interesting topic, although I have to believe that even though NUKE is on my list (last), there is no way in hell they'd want me. My math and science knowledge is dismal, and I'm not even sure I'd understand the interview questions even if I wanted the interview. I can barely add. Really.

 

[Scoob]

they couldn't make him do what would effectively be 8 years active instead of 4 given the original ROTC contract. He got SWO in the end, his first choice.

I hope he's on a carrier, where he sees up close just how awesome his 4 years of Navy life are stacking up against that oh so horrible 8 years he would've had to endure wearing wings...

I may have just hit a critical moment in every man's life where he finds himself aging to a point where he starts to consider making statements like: "I weep...".

 

[Spekkio]

Honestly, the way an officer's contract is written, I doubt the 4 vs. 8 active duty was the actual issue. To my knowledge, aviation always meets its goals, so if someone doesn't want it the community can say good riddance and move on.

Besides, don't aviators sign the 8 year active duty commitment contract AFTER winging, which then overrides the existing 4 active 4 reserve contract? Also, isn't NROTC moving toward a minimum 5 year commitment like the Academy?

 

[DanMa1156]

DanMa,

I am not an Academy Mid. I posted this not only because it is an interesting talking point, but because I was assured I that there were no nuke draftees. Having known Mids from my NROTC unit who were indeed harangued into it, I was surprised to hear that. Hence the "So much for..." title choice.

And where I got it isn't really that important. If there was any OPSEC on it, by the time it got to me, it was long since violated. Suffice to say it was already thoroughly in the grapevine, which is how I came upon it.

An interesting topic, although I have to believe that even though NUKE is on my list (last), there is no way in hell they'd want me. My math and science knowledge is dismal, and I'm not even sure I'd understand the interview questions even if I wanted the interview. I can barely add. Really.

Wasn't criticizing, was strictly curious.

Let me preface my next statement with "yes, I know I'm a dumb Mid," BUT with that said, I understand there probably was no OPSEC on that message, but it was probably FOUO as many things are here. I think it's a poor attitude that since others have violated OPSEC you would take on the tendency that it's ok to further it, rather than call them out on it and stop it there rather than posting it on public domain. In this case, yes, it's a minor thing, but in the future, I would tend to think that's a poor attitude to adopt. /dumb Mid's rant.

 

[Seafort]

Wasn't criticizing, was strictly curious.

Let me preface my next statement with "yes, I know I'm a dumb Mid," BUT with that said, I understand there probably was no OPSEC on that message, but it was probably FOUO as many things are here. I think it's a poor attitude that since others have violated OPSEC you would take on the tendency that it's ok to further it, rather than call them out on it and stop it there rather than posting it on public domain. In this case, yes, it's a minor thing, but in the future, I would tend to think that's a poor attitude to adopt. /dumb Mid's rant.

If you're a dumb mid, I am probably dumber. At least I most certainly was.

The OPSEC comment was a joke, and yes, it might well have had a FOUO tag on it. I don't know. I've only seen it in exactly the way I posted it. I got it from a public domain. It would have made it here eventually, I am sure. That's the way these things go. That being said, I recognise your point about it being a poor attitude to adopt, and in retrospect, you are probably correct. I was thinking of it mostly as ironically amusing, not so much as an opportunity to show leadership. Perhaps that is why I am dumber.

Yes the NROTC system is moving to a 5 year commitment.