I've followed this thread for quite some time; going on about a year. I finally joined and thought I would share some lessons learned and maybe address some of the RFIs on this forum (as far as putting a packet together goes). A little background on me: currently a regular army commissioned Infantry Officer, in command, 7 years active federal commissioned service, and have a complete packet that I am organizing and sending off tomorrow for the JAN 18 board.
All documents are to be sent in "true PDF form", if you are unsure of what this means, print off the document, scan it to your email and boom, it is now in "true PDF format"
The AFS ETP (Geniee) is a requirement according to my recruiter and AR 611-110 (Chapter 2). This means you need to include the ETP memo in your packet and submit your packet 6 weeks early. I'm going for the JAN 18 board and am required to submit my packet mid October this year. Ask your area recruiter for an example and they may be able to provide you one.
The physical. I don't know if it's just our medical community up here or the corps in general but I would recommend getting after this as early as possible. They have no sense of urgency. Luckily I found a legit dude that was a PA and was flight surgeon qualified that knocked it out quickly.
For the LORs. Since I am currently in command, it was recommended that rather than a "company and BN commander write my LORs" that I get my 1st and 2nd line UCMJ authority (BN and BDE commander) LOR and write an MFR explaining that I am currently in command and would not have a Company Commander LOR. They have to be in the 3.3 format and be digitally signed with email and phone number in the memo.
I would recommend contacting your recruiter and if they have time, ask them to check your documents for correctness and completeness. There were several forms that I triple checked and he found certain items that should have been written another way from how I had written mine.
Better to go a step beyond and provide MFRs that explain the situation than to think you are meeting the requirement and find out you aren't meeting the standard at all IMO. If I was on a board selecting candidates, it would satisfy me more to see an explanation than to try and either thumb through ARs or try to figure out the "whys" on my own. Crucial when your packet has a fixed amount of time to be looked at.
If anyone is in a similar position and has any specific questions, feel free to ask. Looking forward to the January 2018 board.