The eval is due Friday. Because of that, you've known about it for three weeks. But here you are, Thursday night, staring at a blank block 43, wondering how to sum up twelve months of someone's career in three lines without sounding like everyone else.
Sound familiar?
You're not alone. Worth adding: the comments on duties section — block 43 on the NAVFIT 98A, the meat of the evaluation — is where good sailors get average write-ups and great sailors get overlooked. Now, not because they didn't perform. Because nobody taught their chain of command how to write it Turns out it matters..
I've read thousands of these. Consider this: written hundreds. And the gap between what a sailor did and what ends up on paper? It's usually massive.
Let's fix that Most people skip this — try not to..
What Is the Comments on Duties Section
Block 43. Maybe four if you're lucky with formatting. Three lines. That's all the space you get to describe the primary duties, scope of responsibility, and — most importantly — the impact of an enlisted sailor's performance during the reporting period.
It's not a job description. Plus, the Navy already knows what an ET2 or an HM3 generally does. This is where you prove this specific sailor did it better, faster, smarter, or at a higher level than the standard.
The format hasn't changed in decades. Comparison. But the expectations have. Senior chiefs and master chiefs reading selection boards today? Day to day, they're looking for quantification. Because of that, context. They want to know: *So what?
If your comment reads like a position description from a manning document, you failed the sailor. Period The details matter here. Nothing fancy..
The Real Purpose Nobody Talks About
Here's what the instruction won't tell you: this block is the only narrative most board members will ever read. They don't have time for the whole eval. That's why they scan block 43, block 44 (achievements), and the trait averages. That's it Turns out it matters..
Three lines to make or break a promotion. A warfare pin. A C-school quota. A command assignment.
No pressure.
Why It Matters More Than You Think
Most evals are written in a rush. The CO signs it. The chief tweaks it. Even so, the division officer signs it. The LPO drafts something. Nobody reads it again until a board convenes six months later.
By then, it's too late.
I've seen sailors miss chief by one point on the multiple-choice exam — but their evals were so generic the board couldn't justify the extra points that would've put them over. I've seen first classes with incredible technical skills get passed over for LDO because their evals read like they just "stood watch" and "maintained equipment."
The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake.
The comments on duties section is your evidence. Everything else is just claims The details matter here..
What Happens When You Phone It In
Generic language kills careers. Not dramatically. Quietly.
"Supervised division personnel in daily operations."
"Maintained equipment to highest standards."
"Supported command mission through dedicated service.
These aren't comments. Now, they're filler. And every senior chief on a board has read them ten thousand times. They signal one thing: *this chain of command didn't care enough to be specific.
The sailor pays the price.
How to Write Comments That Actually Work
There's a formula. Here's the thing — it's not classified. It's just rarely taught well That's the part that actually makes a difference..
Start With the Duty, Not the Title
Don't write "Leading Petty Officer, Reactor Controls Division." That's a title. Write what the duty entailed.
"Served as LPO for 14-sailor Reactor Controls Division, overseeing daily operations, maintenance scheduling, and qualification progression for three watchstations across two reactor plants."
See the difference? The second one has scope. Numbers. Specificity. A board member can visualize the responsibility Which is the point..
Use the Challenge-Action-Result Method
Every strong comment answers three questions, implicitly:
- What was hard about this? (Challenge)
- What did the sailor do about it? (Action)
- What changed because of it? (Result)
"Managed divisional PMS program" is weak.
"Revitalized divisional PMS program after 34% overdue rate — restructured scheduling, trained 12 watchstanders on SKED, achieved zero overdue items for final six months of reporting period" is a record But it adds up..
Same duty. Totally different signal The details matter here..
Quantify Everything You Can
Numbers aren't optional. They're the language of selection boards.
- Number of personnel supervised
- Dollar value of equipment managed
- Percentage improvement
- Hours saved
- Deficiencies eliminated
- Qualifications earned
- Inspection scores
- Sorties supported
- Missions completed
If you can't quantify it, you probably don't understand the impact well enough to write the comment. Go find the data Simple, but easy to overlook..
Use Strong Verbs — But Not the Same Five
Spearheaded. Orchestrated. Revolutionized. Championed. Pioneered Worth keeping that in mind..
Great verbs. Once each. Per eval.
If every bullet starts with "spearheaded," you look like a thesaurus threw up on the page. Mix it up. Use plain, powerful verbs most of the time: directed, managed, led, developed, reduced, increased, eliminated, established, coordinated, executed Worth knowing..
Save the fancy ones for the one thing that truly was exceptional.
Write for the Board, Not the Sailor
The sailor already knows what they did. The eval isn't for them. It's for the master chief in Millington who has 400 evals to read in two days.
Make their job easy.
- Front-load the most impressive fact
- Use standard abbreviations (PMS, CQ, OOD, not "planned maintenance system")
- Skip the fluff adjectives: "outstanding," "superior," "exceptional" — show it instead
- Keep sentences tight. One thought per sentence.
Common Mistakes That Keep Showing Up
I see these every cycle. Every command. Every rate Most people skip this — try not to..
Mistake 1: Confusing Duties With Achievements
Block 43 is for duties and scope. Block 44 is for specific achievements.
Don't clutter block 43 with "earned EP on advancement exam" or "selected as Bluejacket of the Quarter.Even so, " That's block 44 material. Practically speaking, block 43 should make the reader think: *Wow, they had a lot of responsibility. * Block 44 makes them think: *Wow, they crushed it.
Mistake 2: Copy-Pasting From Last Year's Eval
The reporting period changed. The sailor grew. The command's priorities shifted. The eval must change.
At minimum, update the numbers. Consider this: the context. The scope. If the comment could apply to any year, it's useless And that's really what it comes down to..
Mistake 3: Writing to the Billet, Not the Person
"Stand watch as Reactor Operator" describes the billet.
"Qualified Reactor Operator in 8 months — fastest in division in 3 years — stood 147 critical watches with zero procedural violations" describes the person.
The billet is the same for everyone. The person isn't. Write the person.
Mistake 4: Hiding the Scope
"Supervised maintenance personnel" tells me nothing.
"Supervised 8 maintenance technicians across 3 shifts, managing $2.4M in test equipment calibration and 1,200+ PMS actions quarterly" tells me
me exactly how much weight they carry.
Scope is the "how much" and "how big" of the bullet. Worth adding: you can't tell if the sailor managed a single person or an entire department. Without it, your achievement exists in a vacuum. You can't tell if they saved ten dollars or ten thousand. Always anchor your achievements in the reality of the command's mission.
Not the most exciting part, but easily the most useful.
Mistake 5: The "Participation Trophy" Bullet
"Participated in..." "Assisted with..." "Helped with..."
These are weak. They suggest the sailor was in the room while something happened, but they weren't the driving force. In a competitive board, "participated" is a polite way of saying "was a bystander.
If they were part of a team, define their specific contribution. Did they author the training manual? Did they coordinate the logistics? Which means did they execute the repairs? If they didn't lead or do the heavy lifting, they shouldn't be the subject of the bullet Practical, not theoretical..
The Final Polish: The "So What?" Test
Before you hit "save" and send that draft to the Chain of Command, read every single bullet and ask yourself: "So what?"
- "Managed divisional training." → So what? → "Achieved 100% qualification rate for 15 personnel."
- "Repaired faulty radar component." → So what? → "Restored critical sensor capability 48 hours ahead of deployment."
If a bullet doesn't answer the "so what," it's fluff. If it doesn't have a number, it's an opinion. If it doesn't show impact, it's wasted space The details matter here..
Conclusion
Writing Navy evaluations is a skill, much like operating a ship or maintaining a jet. It requires precision, attention to detail, and an understanding of the mission.
An evaluation is more than just a piece of paperwork; it is the legal record of a Sailor's career. It is the primary document used to decide who gets promoted, who gets selected for specialized training, and who is given leadership opportunities. When you write a sloppy, vague, or repetitive evaluation, you aren't just being a bad writer—you are actively sabotaging the career of the person you lead Took long enough..
Do the math. Use the data. In real terms, write for the Board. Give your Sailors the credit they actually earned.
