Would it be more beneficial to seek out an Army CW3-CW5 for my 153a LOR vice an in-service field grade aviator for my WOFT packet?

Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:06:03 -0400

I have been an Aircrewman in the Navy for the last 7 years, currently flying as a Crew Chief on a
C-37a, and just have a few quick questions about the following link which subsequently holds the following paragraph:

http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/prerequ/wo153a.shtml

" If the unit commander or above is a field grade aviator, the aviator interview may be part of the commander's endorsement. In this case, the commander's endorsement must contain the same statement required for the aviator interview. Use a memorandum format and start with the statement I have interviewed (your name) and find (he/she) has the needed personal characteristics, motivation, physical stamina, and qualifications to be appointed a U.S. Army Reserve warrant officer and appears acceptable for selection into the WOFT program as a warrant officer candidate."

I have spoken with aviation units here in Hawaii and have gotten 50/50 responses conveying the same answers... "CWO LOR's speak more as to who you are to join the Warrant Officer ranks vs a well written LOR from an O-4 who personally knows you and can attest for who you are as an aviator is valid, etc."

Summed up, i'm looking for are more views on the matter on how everyone feels about receiving a CW3-CW5 LOR vs field grade aviator in my current branch LOR with a more personal touch. Would it adversely affect my packet if I do not receive an Army Warrant Officer LOR? Thank you in advance.

wo153a.shtml

Response by LCDR Robert S. made Aug 7 at 2018 12:39 AM

LCDR Robert S. — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:39:40 -0400

Not having ever sat on a Warrant Officer board for the Army, I can't speak to the question of whether it would adversely affect your packet if you don't get an Army WO LOR. But I can speak to the PS comment - having sat on a number of Navy Direct Commission boards, there were officers who looked askance at having too many LORs. The concern they expressed was one or more of "this guy is a real brown-noser," "he's trying to show us how well-connected he is," or "he's trying to snow us under with paper." For my part, I didn't consider extra letters to be a point against someone, but I didn't consider it a point in their favor, either.

I can see the point of having both an Army perspective and the perspective of someone who knows you well, but beyond that I can't see a board thinking you're actually a better candidate just because you got more people to write for you.

Response by CW5 Michael Scheller made Aug 7 at 2018 2:35 AM

CW5 Michael Scheller — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 02:35:57 -0400

Yes. Seek out an active duty Chief Warrant Officer 4 or 5 Army Aviator (I'm not one any longer BTW). Go out of your way. Make an appointment. Make the trip. Take your packet with you for him or her to review. Ask them to red-ink the heck out of it. While still on Active Duty, I had a great success rate of interviewees who went on to be selected, primarily because I didn't make it easy on them to get the interview; I edited their packets, including, to one young man's surprise, the letter of recommendation from his LTC (O-5) battalion commander. That LOR had numerous errors, spelling, grammar and formatting. Every error in your packet is a reflection on you; even the one's made by others.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2018 2:45 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:45:14 -0400

If your packet shows you are a top performer, the LOR from a senior warrant will probably not be needed as the board would probably take into consideration the cross service application as well your LOR is from an aviator. That being said, most senior warrants are very agreeable to writing recommendations for deserving people (somewhat echoing mike here).

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2018 9:24 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Sep 2018 09:24:52 -0400

Always a CW5.

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made Feb 11 at 2019 4:41 AM

CW4 Craig Urban — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 04:41:04 -0500

I think either is ok