The potential is there, but don't count on it. The scholastic achievements sound nice, but there's no way for me to tell whether they show your strength or your opponents' weakness. The key number I pay attention to is your rating. You've beaten an 1800 (computer) opponent many times, but what's your win percentage against it?
If you can beat the 1800-rated computer 80-90% of the time, then I'd say you're on track. If you beat it 10-20% of the time, then don't get your hopes up too high. In any case, computer chess is a bit weird, you'll get a truer measure of your skills by playing humans in real live tournaments.
You're putting in an impressive amount of work into chess, but if you aren't playing in rated tournaments on a regular basis then you're way behind the curve. If you are, then your rating should tell you what you need to know. As a general rule, a future grandmaster would probably be rated at least 2000 at your age. In any case, I think you should focus on becoming a master before you worry about grandmaster status.
Good luck in any case!
I'm also a former scholastic chess champion, my high school team won the national championship (of Finland, so perhaps equivalent to a U.S. state championship), and I never even made master - partly because I gave up competitive chess some 20 years ago, I didn't like it enough to put in all the work required to improve further. My rating is somewhere in the 2100's.