Proposed CO's endorsement

[doctorjake]

Here at good old Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard they want me to write a proposed CO's endorsement for my OCS package. I was wondering if anyone has any tips or advice of things to include that would help it to really stand out.

 

[BigIron]

Get the last accepted guy's package and use that as an example / template. Then, add your own stuff in.

 

[HH-60H]

The only original author in the Navy was JPJ.

 

[doctorjake]

Unfortunately quoting JPJ doesn't do me a whole lotta good.

 

[HH-60H]

No, no I was referring to Big Iron. Everybody in the Navy uses old/other examples when they fill out forms, put in requests, write rec letters, etc. The only person who couldn't have is JPJ.

 

[BigIron]

I am not telling you to plagarize, I am telling you not to reinvent the wheel. If they have a winning format (aparently they got accepted), then use the same format they wrote, see what kind of things they added, and add the best of your information.

Wait until you write fitreps, and the volumes of fitreps from the last 75 dudes appear to be referenced.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Fvck that. Plagarize, plagarize, plagarize! We're not writing an academic research paper here. Plagarism is not a factor. Don't make this harder on yourself than it already is.

 

[doctorjake]

Thanks for the tips. I already have several other guys letters to plagarize from. I was really just looking for anything extra (keywords/tricky phrases) that the board might look for to make it stand out from the rest. Otherwise I'll just write the standard brag sheet and expand on stuff from my evals.

 

[navymichael]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with a portion of the above suggestions. While plagiarism in some sense is acceptable (in terms of formatting), you'd do best to try to stand out amongst the crowd rather than blend in. That's the whole point after all. Much like evals/fitreps though, the CONTENT is what will be looked at much more than the format. For years the debate about which key phrases will do the trick etc. But in reality, it's the actual achievements stated in the write up that will carry the day more than anything else.

With that said, I would simply suggest using "active voice" rather than "passive voice". Meaning, write each sentence in a Subject, Verb Object style rather than the other way around. It states the same information, but it does it in a stronger way.

Also, try to stay away from overused adjectives and verbs.

And lastly, end a recommendation letter with a VERY STRONG, unambiguous statement that gives clear direction (in the form of an "action step") for the board. "John Doe is already performing in the manner of (whatever you are applying for). Select him immediately!" Something bold like that will help you stand out from the many: "This is a good guy that I am recommending because I want to be a good guy too." type conclusions.

Hope that helps. And good luck!

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with a portion of the above suggestions. While plagiarism in some sense is acceptable (in terms of formatting), you'd do best to try to stand out amongst the crowd rather than blend in. That's the whole point after all.

Obviously you took plagarize to mean he should copy word for word what the other person had in his writeup.

Much like evals/fitreps though, the CONTENT is what will be looked at much more than the format. For years the debate about which key phrases will do the trick etc. But in reality, it's the actual achievements stated in the write up that will carry the day more than anything else.

Achievements are a definite must, but getting those tricky words and phrases in there helps make the CO's statement that much better. The lack of certain phrases will send a clear message to the board that this isn't the right candidate this year. Same holds true for fitreps and evals. You didn't get to be a chief by just your achievements.

With that said, I would simply suggest using "active voice" rather than "passive voice". Meaning, write each sentence in a Subject, Verb Object style rather than the other way around. It states the same information, but it does it in a stronger way.

Also, try to stay away from overused adjectives and verbs.

Examples please.

 

[navymichael]

An example of "active" vs. "passive" voice would be:

Passive- "100% compliance was achieved by doctorjake on such and such inspection."

Active- "doctorjake achieved 100% on such and such inspection."

It's just the difference between using Subject, Verb, Object rather than the other way around.

 

[HH-60H]

An example of "active" vs. "passive" voice would be:

Passive- "100% compliance was achieved by doctorjake on such and such inspection."

Active- "doctorjake achieved 100% on such and such inspection."

It's just the difference between using Subject, Verb, Object rather than the other way around.

Ummm, I think he means examples of overused adjectives and verbs.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Ummm, I think he means examples of overused adjectives and verbs.

Correct. Appreciate the English lesson though.

 

[navymichael]

Sorry about that. Since you quoted the part about active vs. passive voice as well, I thought that was the "example" you were thinking of.

Whenever we write evals/fitreps or letters of recommendation, we tend to overuse words like: Spearheaded, Coordinated, above and beyond, peerless etc.

There's nothing wrong with using those words. But often they are used by a whole lot of folks and end up sounding somewhat monotone to the reader. I am simply suggesting trying to look at synonyms in order to break out.

But I still go back to my main point. It is largely the content and not any turn-of-phrase that will impress a board. Navy boards see right through flowery BS. Be clear, concise, different and powerful in the write up. If the content is deserving, it will be looked upon more favorably. If the content isn't competitive, no amount of wordsmithing will help.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It is largely the content and not any turn-of-phrase that will impress a board. Navy boards see right through flowery BS. Be clear, concise, different and powerful in the write up. If the content is deserving, it will be looked upon more favorably. If the content isn't competitive, no amount of wordsmithing will help.

Go back and look at your PO1 evals. I bet they say something at the bottom of the write-up something along the lines of "Promote now to Chief Petty Officer!" You're right, flowery BS is still BS. But regardless of how powerful the content may by, the game still has to be played.