Having a set of well written evaluations in your Officer package is key to your selection! In addition to your your CO’s endorsement, letters of recommendation, interviews, and personal statements, your evaluations tell the selection board who you are.  Your evaluations are the vehicles through which your sustained superior performance is communicated.  Without solid evaluations, you don’t stand a chance.

But luckily for you, most officer programs only require three to five years of evaluations.  So, even if you have some less than stellar evaluations you can correct course, apply yourself, and earn higher marks until eventually those bad evals are no longer in the five year range.  I should know, that’s exactly what I did.

I have not always been a stellar Sailor.  In fact, I hit quite a rough patch on my second ship as a Third and Second Class Petty Officer.  I thought I was smarter and better than the people around me and displayed open contempt for my leaders and shipmates.  I had zero tact or professionalism; I was a jerk, and my stack of counseling chits showed it.  Eventually, my chain of command got fed up with my attitude and sent me to Captain’s Mast, also known as Non Judicial Punishment (NJP), which I deserved.  The Captain awarded me 45 days of restriction, 45 days of extra duty, and a suspended bust down to E4.  It was miserable, and I was jaded about the whole thing.  But the truth is I earned every day of my restriction.  It took me a long time to see that, but it’s true; I earned it.  

I often share this story with my junior Sailors when they’re struggling, or are having a difficult time maintaining professionalism.  I don’t use this story’s as a threat, but as a tool to show them (even after I’ve decided to send them to mast in some cases) that these difficulties will pass.  We are not the sum of our mistakes, and they do not define us.  Even the most challenging obstacles can be overcome with time, effort, and dedication.  My point is, if your evaluations are not where you want them to be —if they are not competitive — you can change it; it just takes time, effort, and dedication.  

However, after more than a decade and a half of service — and across 12 duty stations and training commands — I have personally received only two formal trainings on how to write evals.  I know it differs from command to command, but I believe that there are a lot of other people out there with the same experience (or lack there of).  So with that in mind I’m going to share some of the training I’ve received and things I’ve learned about writing and interpreting evaluations.

You Need to be Writing Your Own Evals

First things first, if you’re not writing your own evaluations you need to start now.  There are three important reasons for this: 

1. No one knows what you did over the past year better than you.
2. You need the practice — eventually you’ll be writing all of the evals for your division or department.
3. It’s your responsibility to take care of your career, not your supervisor’s. 

Write your evaluations yourself and give your supervisor the best material to work with.  Sure, they might change it a little bit, but they will appreciate it if you give them quality material to work with, and it will be reflected in the final product.

The Write Up

The write up portion of your eval is one of the most important parts of your evaluation, and it is where you get to describe all of your accomplishments over the past year.  It is (or should be) a highly structured format that includes an opening and closing headline, a body with three bullet statement with a one or two word attention getter at the beginning of each, data driven cause-and-effect accomplishments, and either plenty of white space or no white space (depending on the preference of your command).

White space

Before we get into the weeds on the details of how to write an eval, I want to talk about white space.  Every command has their own policy with regard to the amount of white space your eval should have.  It is completely a matter of preference for your commander and you should check with your Admin Department prior to writing your evals. 

There are valid arguments on both sides of the spectrum; on one hand, having no white space means you’re utilizing all the space provided to describe your performance during the evaluation period.  On the other hand, having ample white space provide clear definition to your points, creates clear separation between the ideas you’re presenting, and allows the key points you want the board to see to really pop off the page.  I prefer a lot of white space.  Example 1 provides an illustration of an eval with no white space.

As you can see in example 1, there is almost no white space.  That doesn’t make it a bad eval.  As I said before, white space is a matter of commander preference and command policy.  My personal preference is more white space.  See Example 2 for an example of ample white space.

Again, both evaluations are solid; white space is a preference, but I feel that example 2 is much cleaner and helps the key details jump out at the selection board.

Now on to the details.  

Format

As I mentioned earlier, your eval should follow a specific format:  Opening Statement and/or Soft Breakout, Body, and Closing Statement and/or Call to Action.  In this regard it is much the same as a standard essay format, with the exception that it is much shorter, more concise, and does not follow all of the standard grammar conventions.

Opening Statements and Soft Breakouts

Opening statements and soft breakouts are directed at selection boards; they are the target audience.  Its purpose is to get the attention of the board member reviewing your records, and it is intended to make you stand out.  For that reason, it is at the top of block 43, centered, in all caps, limited to one or two lines and preceded and followed with asterisks.  And, importantly, it is written from the perspective of your Reporting Senior —the person whom has the final signing authority on your evaluation. 

What you want to see in the opening statement is a bold declaration about your sustained superior performance.  When you haven’t been formally ranked against your peers, the opening statement acts as a topic sentence of sorts.

For example, your opening statement could be something like:  

*** QUICKLY ESTABLISHED HERSELF IN A DEMANDING BILLET – IMMEDIATE SHIP-WIDE IMPACT! ***  

Or, something like:

*** ABSOLUTE SUPERSTAR!!! RECOGNIZED LEADER AMONGST HIS PEERS!!! ***

Soft breakouts, on the other hand, speak to your relative ranking amongst your peers.  This will typically be done by your command’s ranking board. Typically, the Chief’s Mess will provide its inputs to the Department Heads and the Department Heads will provide their recommendations for ranking to the Captain.  Because of the amount of time, work, and debate that goes into ranking Sailors, soft breakouts are typically reserved for First Class Petty Officers, Chief Petty Officers, and Officers.  If you don’t fall into that category, you typically won’t see a soft breakout.  

So, if you’re writing your own evaluation — as you should — you would submit your evaluation with a soft breakout formatted as such:

*** #X OF 16 OUTSTANDING FIRST CLASS PETTY OFFICERS AT MY COMMAND! ***

Thus allowing your chain of command fill in your ranking.  Note, you typically won’t want to use this soft breakout unless you know you’re in the top three to five .  If that’s not the case, go for an opening statement instead.

Body

The Body of your evaluation is very similar to the body of an essay; you’re going to describe your work and accomplishments over the previous year and defend your position by showing cause and effect.  Unlike an essay, though, it doesn’t follow standard sentence conventions. Instead, bullet statements are presented that identify the subject which is then followed by a brief description that illustrates cause and effect.  Furthermore, each bullet statement has a specific purpose:

1. Your primary job accomplishments
2. Your secondary job/collateral accomplishments
3. Your personal/professional accomplishments, and/or the accomplishments of your subordinates

Let’s revisit the body paragraph in Example 1.

Example 1 follows the bullet statement format.  Each bullet is prefaced by an all caps subject and followed by a description of the cause and effects.  The first bullet describes the primary duties and the associated accomplishments.  The second bullet describes the secondary or collateral duty accomplishments.  The third bullet contains both subordinate and personal accomplishments. However, each bullet doesn’t just list the accomplishments (i.e. causes).  Instead, they presents the accomplishments in a measurable way —typically through valuation, i.e. numbers — and then explain the effects that these accomplishments produced.

For example, the first Body bullet from Example 1 states:

INNOVATIVE LEADER.  Led a team of 16 military and eight civilian personnel in the commissioning of an organic port visit package for units operating in the 6th Fleet AOR [Area of Operations]. Chaired four table top exercises, co-authored an article and brief to CNEURAFSWA [Commander, Navy Region Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia], and ensured a seamless transition of port service coordination from the traditional Husbanding Service Provider (HSP) to NAVSUP FLCSI [Naval Supply Systems Fleet Logistics Center, Sigonella, Site Souda Bay], resulting in a cost savings of $1.3M [million].

While this paragraph is a bit long, it’s got a lot going for it.  Let’s break it down.

First, it starts — as all Body bullets in an eval should — with an all caps two word statement that introduces the subject of the bullet:  “INNOVATIVE LEADER”.  Next, it explains what innovative leadership activities were engaged in  — these are the causes — during the previous year and attempts to quantify them:  

Causes

1. Led 16 military and 8 civilians in commissioning of a new program
2. Led 4 table top exercises
3. Co-authored 1 article
4. Wrote and delivered 1 brief to an Admiral

Then, it outlines the effects of causes a-d:

Effects

1. Seamless transition from legacy program to new program
2. $1.3 million in savings.

For a second example let’s look at the last bullet statement from Example 1 which states:

-DEDICATED MENTOR. Committed to the professional development of his Sailors, resulting in two advancements, three re-enlistments, and 100% USMAP [United Services Military Apprenticeship Program] and college enrollment. Earned his Bachelor fo Science degree in Psychology and was admitted to the University of Southern California’s Masters of Public Administration program.

As in the previous example it begins with the subject —two words, all caps:  “DEDICATED MENTOR”.  In this example the command preferred to have a dash at the beginning of each bullet statement; just a matter of preference, not right or wrong.  The subject is then followed by the cause:  commitment to the professional development of his Sailors; and, the effect:  everything else.

Closing Statement and Call to Action

Finally, after you’ve written your three succinct bullet statements with outstanding subjects, causes, and effects, you can finish your eval with a Closing Statement and Call to Action.

Much like the Opening Statement, the Closing Statement and Call to Action is going to be preceded and followed by asterisks, in all caps, and be written in the voice of your Reporting Senior.  It is closing out your evaluation with a strong statement about your sustained superior performance while also demanding some type of future action from the board members. 

In Example 1, we see the strong closing statement as:  “HIGHLY EXCEPTIONAL DECKPLATE LEADER”; and the directions to the board:  “GIVE LS1 [Logistics Specialist First Class] ANCHORS [promote to Chief Petty Officer] THIS YEAR; SELECT TODAY!”  

Your closing statement is intended to end your eval on a high note while also looking toward the future.  If you’re not currently up for promotion, you could use forward looking statements such as:  “ASSIGN TO THE MOST DEMANDING BILLETS” or “READY FOR INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY”.  The important thing to remember is that the Closing Statement is summarizing your sustained superior performance, and the Call to Action is demanding future action from the selection board.

The Numbers

Now that we’ve talked extensively about how to develop an outstanding write  up, I want to spend some time on the important numbers within your evaluation; specifically, the:  Individual Trait Average, Summary Group Average, and Reporting Senior Cumulative Average (RSCA).

Individual Trait Average and Summary Group Average

Before we get too deep in the weeds on Individual Trait Averages and Summary Group Averages, Let’s review what the Performance Trait scores actually mean.  Here is what the Eval Manual says on how you should be graded on the 5.0 scale for each of the Performance Traits (blocks 33-39 fo your eval):

5.0 – Superstar Performance – Could be promoted two pay grades and still be a standout in this trait.

4.0 – Advanced Performance – Far more than promotion-ready in this trait right now.

3.0 – Dependable, “Fully-Qualified,” Journeyman Performance – Can handle this aspect of the next higher pay grade.

2.0 – Useful, Promising Performance – Needs development in this trait, but is promotable if overall performance warrants it.

1.0 – Disappointing Performance – Until deficiencies are remedied in this trait, should not be promoted.

Your Individual Trait Average (block 40 on you eval) is exactly what it sounds like; it is the average of all of the Performance Trait marks you received, ranging from 1.0 – 5.0.  This number may seem straight forward, but it’s not.  While it is certainly straight forward in the sense that it is an “average” in every sense of the mathematical term, where it begins to stray from the expected is in how your Reporting Senior has to manage the scores he or she gives you. 

Your Reporting Senior may truly believe that you deserve a 5.0 in every Performance Trait, but because of how they have to manage the scores, your Individual Trait Average may only be 3.8.  That sucks, right!  Well, it depends.  Don’t get your feelings hurt, we’ll talk more about why you got a 3.8 instead of a 5.0 in a little bit when we talk about RSCA.  What’s really important is not that you got a 3.8 trait average, but how your 3.8 compares to the Summary Group Average (block 50 of your eval).

What is your Summary Group Average?  In brief, it is the average of all of the Individual Trait Averages of all of the members of your command that are the same rank as you for the current period.  In other words, it is the average Individual Trait Average of your peers.  By comparing your Individual Trait Average to the Summary Group Average you can see how your eval ranks against your peers.  For this reason, it is this comparison that is more important than your Individual Trait Average.  Needless to say, to be a competitive officer candidate you should be outpacing your peers in the Summary Group Average.

Reporting Senior Cumulative Average (RSCA)

You may never have heard the term RSCA before.  That’s okay.  I didn’t find out about it until after I became an Officer, and only because it’s listed on Officer’s PSR (Personnel Summary Record).  And, up until the end of 2018 it wouldn’t have made much of a difference to you.  We’ll get to that in a minute.

The Reporting Senior’s Cumulative Average (RSCA) is simply the average of all the Individual Trait Averages that the person signing your eval has assigned to Sailors of the rank you currently hold.  For example, say your Commanding Officer is your Reporting Senior and has signed 300 E6 evaluations in the course of her career. Her RSCA is the average of all of those evaluations.  Furthermore, she will have a separate RSCA for each of the ranks for which she is the Reporting Senior. Her RSCA will follow her around throughout her career and will adjust up or down depending on how she grades her Sailors.  According to PERS-42, “reporting Seniors must carefully manage their RSCA, so as to truly be able to indicate both superior and sub-standard performance.  Most Reporting Seniors try to maintain their average between 3.8 and 4.2.” 

If your Reporting Senior has been over zealous in the past with the Performance Trait marks they’ve given their Sailors, their overall RSCA may be getting too high.  When this happens your Reporting Senior will likely try to lower their overall RSCA by giving lower Performance Trait marks.

If you find yourself in a situation where your Reporting Senior is actively trying to lower their RSCA, and you feel that this may negatively impact your chances of being selected, don’t worry.  You can request that your Reporting Senior provide a letter explaining your lower marks to include in your package to the board.

Typically, when the Lieutenant Commander Selection Board is looking at Lieutenant Service Records, one of the things their looking for is how your FITREP Member Trait Average compares to your Reporting Senior’s RSCA.  Consistently, beat the RSCA and you could find yourself wearing gold oak leafs on your collar.  

But, if your reading this blog chances are you’re not currently too concerned with making Lieutenant Commander.  So why do I take the time to talk about RSCA?  Well, as of 20 December 2018, with the release of NAVADMIN 312/18, the RSCA is now factored into the Performance Mark Average (PMA) for E6 and E7 candidates — that means you, E5’s and E6’s.  What does that mean?  It means the higher marks you get above your Reporting Senior’s RSCA the more points you’ll get toward your advancement exam!  I fully encourage you to go look up the NAVADMIN yourself to get a full understanding of how this works and how it will effect you.

Final Thoughts

• Having a set of well written evals is key to your selection as an Officer Candidate.
• You should be writing your own evals.
• Your evals should follow a specific format, demonstrate cause and effect, and keep the selection board in mind.
• If your evals aren’t stellar now, you can fix them through a concentrated effort over time.
• Pay attention to the numbers, the board will.

---