My son graduated/commissioned from the Academy in May of 2006.

I was under the impression that he had to serve five active duty years, beginning the day after he received his diploma.

However, another parent to whom I spoke mentioned that the "clock" didn't start until after he graduated nuke school ... almost 2/3 of a year later.

I don't suppose it will matter much, as he seems to be enjoying the challenge of submarine life thus far ... but can anyone shed any light on this? With so much rumor, it'd be nice to see an actual regulation/document for once!

Thank you!

I'm not sure what it is for officers, but I believe that active duty begins on his first day of basic training. My hubby is enlisted so I'm not really sure what the differences would be. Sorry I can't be more helpful!

His active duty time started when he graduated from the academy.

quote:

Originally posted by GerryRM3:
His active duty time started when he graduated from the academy.

True, but obligation times vary based on chosen designator, which is why there is confusion

Mom, USNA grads have a minimum obligation of 5 years, but it is extended based on the length of training. Aviators can get extended to 8 or 9 depending on the aircraft and training length. Nuke officers (sub officers) are obligated to 6 as a minimum based on the 1 year in training.

So his active duty time has started, he's just under a longer obligation. Who-ever told you that was confused; although I guess one could look at it as your 5 year contract "not starting" until training is over.

He is under a 5 year contract and it starts the day he graduates from the academy.

quote:

Originally posted by bluescope:
He is under a 5 year contract and it starts the day he graduates from the academy.

Read the above, it comes direct from the USNA website

quote:

Originally posted by catherine0830:

quote:

Originally posted by bluescope:
He is under a 5 year contract and it starts the day he graduates from the academy.

Read the above, it comes direct from the USNA website

Yep - it used to be 2-for-1 - 2 years of additional service for each year of training such as grad school, nuke, whatever. My obligated service ended when I retired after 26 years. The Navy and I had had enough of each other by then (thanks to "Jimmy the Drywaller")

"Mack the Knife"
CDR USN (Ret)

Ok who is Jimmy the drywaller? Inquring minds want to know.

quote:

Originally posted by mpwimmer:
Ok who is Jimmy the drywaller? Inquring minds want to know.

That would be my nickname for a former POTUS from GA.

"Mack the Knife"
CDR USN (Ret)

Ahhh as the light bulb goes off in my troll cave.

quote:

Originally posted by catherine0830:

quote:

Originally posted by bluescope:
He is under a 5 year contract and it starts the day he graduates from the academy.

Read the above, it comes direct from the USNA website

Does it specifically adress nukes? The USNA grad nukes-to-be that I know all seem to be under the impression that the 5 year commitment still applies because it is greater than or equal to the comittment for a surface or sub nuke. For a Surface Nuke, for instance, the commitement could be most accurately stated as "two years as a nuke on a carrier."

quote:

Originally posted by mpwimmer:
Ahhh as the light bulb goes off in my troll cave.

better get a replacement... I suggest one of those High efficiency compact Flourescents jobs... save you some pennies.

Ah do you mean those bulbs that are full of mercury? The ones that no one is disposing of properly? Sure I can save some money on electricity only to poison the environment with toxic metals. Not sure if that is a good trade off. IMHO

Aw, c'mon! You are saving the environment now so we can poison it later!

What part don't you understand?

since mercury is so toxic can it also be considered natural , and how come it hasn't poisoned the world since we get it out of the ground . Should we put it back in the same hole we got it out of

Dang Neal why didn't anyone else think of that one??

Cause most folks aint as simple as me .
Though must admit putting things back in holes can be fun .

quote:

Originally posted by mpwimmer:
Ah do you mean those bulbs that are full of mercury? The ones that no one is disposing of properly? Sure I can save some money on electricity only to poison the environment with toxic metals. Not sure if that is a good trade off. IMHO

I think there more mercury in tuna fish than in those light bulbs.

quote:

Originally posted by nhegge:
Though must admit putting things back in holes can be fun .

wow....this thread could go downhill fast with that statement !