Posted on Aug 7, 2018
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?
Suspended Profile
21.6K
15
7
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
153A: Rotary Wing Aviator (Aircraft Nonspecific)
Warrant Officers
CW3
CW4
CW5
153A: Rotary Wing Aviator (Aircraft Nonspecific) Warrant Officers CW3 CW4 CW5
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
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.
LCDR Robert S.
When he says "every error is a reflection on you" - for most of the errors, the reflection is that you lack attention to detail, or an inability to follow directions. In the case of errors in the letter of recommendation, it reflects that the person writing it doesn't really care whether or not you are selected. In reading an error-filled letter, a board member will look beyond the words on the page and look at the message that being willing to give you that error-filled letter sends.
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.
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google