Brown Bag Lessons
e Magic of Bullet Writing
By
E R. J
Chief Master Sergeant, USAF, Retired
Edited by
D A
Master Chief, USN, Retired
Air University Press
C
urtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Project Editor
Belinda Bazinet
Copy Editor
Tammi Dacus
Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations
L. Susan Fair
Composition and Prepress Production
Vivian D. O’Neal
Print Preparation and Distribution
Diane Clark
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Jaren, Eric R., 1964- author. | Air University
(U.S.). Press, publisher.
Title: Brown bag lessons : the magic of bullet
writing / Eric R. Jaren.
Other titles: Magic of Bullet Writing
Description: First edition. | Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama : Air University Press, [2018]
Identiers: LCCN 2017052719| ISBN
9781585662784 | ISBN 158566278X
Subjects: LCSH: United States—Armed Forces—
Promotions—Evaluation. | United States—Armed
Forces—Promotions. | Employees—Rating of—
United States. | Performance awards—United States.
Classication: LCC UB323 .J37 2018 | DDC
808.06/6355—dc23 | SUDOC D 301.26/6:B 87
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017052719
Published by Air University Press in December 2017
Copyright © 2012 by Eric R. Jaren
Disclaimer
Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed
or implied within are solely those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the ocial policy or position of
the organizations with which they are associated or the
views of the Air University Press, Air University, United
States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any other US
government agency. is publication is cleared for public
release and unlimited distribution.
AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS
Director and Publisher
Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell
Air University Press
600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6010
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aupress/
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress
and
Twitter: https://twitter.com/aupress
Air University Press
iii
Contents
List of Illustrations v
Foreword vii
About the Author ix
Acknowledgments xi
Preface xiii
Introduction xv
Part 1 Timeless Lessons
1 Genesis 3
2 A Better Mousetrap 7
3 A Consistent Approach 11
Part 2 e Magic
4 Bullet Formats 17
5 Performance Levels 29
6 e Performance Scale 39
Part 3 Practice Makes Perfect
7 Scoring Mechanics
53
8 Top 10 Writing Traps 59
9 Perfect Practice Makes Perfect 67
Part 4 Conducting Boards
10 You Just Can’t Make is Up
105
Abbreviations 109
Appendix 111
v
List of Illustrations
Figure
1 Tactical-Operational-Strategic 21
2 Tactical-Tactical-Tactical 21
3 Tactical-Tactical-Operational 22
4 Tactical-Tactical-Strategic 22
5 Performance-level model 31
Table
1 Performance-level scores 54
vii
Foreword
What leader in any organization hasn’t sat back and internally
screamed, “ere has to be a better way!” Reader beware, there is a
better way. What I inherently knew as a member of US Navy E-7
through E-9 selection boards, CMSgt Eric R. Jaren has captured in a
systematic process useful for every level of leadership. e consis-
tency in the approach embodies reective, thoughtful consideration
to capture the truth and proper context of every person’s accomplish-
ments. e use of performance levels is not conned to any specic
military service. Indeed, it’s universal in application in any business
and culture. e addition of this model into company grade ocer
(CGO) and senior noncommissioned ocer (SNCO) combined cur-
riculum underpins the operational and long-term strategic impor-
tance for the force.
is model was implemented into the Senior Noncommissioned
Ocer Academy (SNCOA) and CGO curriculum as a “best practice”
for meeting the responsibility to mentor institutional competencies
directly impacting the careers of the team. Feedback from students,
scholar-warriors, substantiates the model. e model provides un-
adulterated feedback in mentoring and maintains integrity with pro-
motion and award processes. From this, leadership, followership, and
the core doctrine of developing Airmen are assured. No other presen-
tation media in 33 days of curriculum was asked for by more students
to take back for use in operational units.
DON ALEXANDER
Command Master Chief, USN, retired
Director of Curriculum
Air Force SNCOA
ix
About the Author
Aer 30 years of leading our nation’s Airmen, Chief Master Ser-
geant Eric R. Jaren’s powerful fervor to write Brown Bag Lessons, e
Magic of Bullet Writing is a reection of his passion for developing,
coaching, and mentoring all Airmen. Chief Jaren literally inuenced
the lives of thousands through his seminars and motivational talks
about taking care of Airmen and their families and how to communi-
cate their accomplishments through the written word. With the
Chief, it always comes back around to the core focus of developing
leaders. e magic of this masterpiece is that these timeless brown
bag lessons can be used by any organization—both military and civil-
ian. Chief Jaren’s personal mantra has always been “Find a Need,
Meet a Need,” and his desire for you is that the struggle to write comes
to an end. Are you ready for the magic?
Chief Jaren retired from the US Air Force in 2012. Formerly the
Command Chief Master Sergeant for Air Force Materiel Command’s
13,000+ enlisted Airmen and their families, Chief Jaren’s30-year ca-
reer brought him from the ight line as an aircra mechanic to the
front line as a senior Air Force leader. He’s a warrior Airman who’s
deployed worldwide, including support of Operations Desert Storm
and Desert Shield, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. Chief
Jaren holds a master’s degree in business administration from Trident
University and an executive certicate in negotiation from the Uni-
versity of Notre Dame.
xi
Acknowledgments
By associating with wise people you will become wise yourself.
—Menander, Greek dramatist
In the year preceding my retirement, friends, peers, and colleagues
asked that I capture these techniques so they wouldn’t be lost with my
departure. So, I put pen to paper in the hope that future generations
won’t have to relearn what is already successful. Between the covers
you’ll nd contributions from people cut from the same cloth. Please
allow me to give credit where credit is due.
anks also to omas Jones and Manuel Sarmiento who oered
critical input used to explain the origins of the concept presented; to
Alexander Perry, Anderson Aupiu, and Christopher Powell—my
peers, mentors, condants, and dear friends—who were proponents
oering feedback to the original principles; and to my dear friends
Andrew Hollis, Casey Schoettmer, and Sean Chaplin. I owe much
gratitude for their eorts as contributing editors and thoughtful sug-
gestions to the substance.
A very special thank you to my “ambassador of quan,” Mark Brej-
cha, for writing the “About the Author” section.
1
I’d also like to ac-
knowledge Robert Stroebel, Dave Gilmore, James Martin, Wesley
Riopel, Alan Braden, Edward Ames, James Shepherd, Michele Owc-
zarski, and Justin Deisch for thoughtful contributions and being in-
credible advocates, proponents, and mentors who invest in their
people; and to Mark Bennett and Don Alexander for taking the prin-
ciples to the Squadron Ocer School (SOS) and SNCOA.
A special thanks to Don for his eorts as a contributing editor,
writing the foreword and accepting the responsibility to prepare this
manuscript for submission to Air University Press. I cannot thank
you enough for your seless eorts.
Warmest regards for all my mentors and teammates.
Note
1. Reference phrase used in the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire with Tom Cruise and
Cuba Gooding Jr. “Jerry, you are the ambassador of quan.” e meaning of quan, in
this instance, meaning to be at one with a particular thing or skill.
xiii
Preface
Start with why.
—Simon Sinek, motivational speaker/author
Brown Bag Lessons, e Magic of Bullet Writing is the rst book in
a series on leadership. is book centers on eective bullet writing
and guarantees immediate improvement. Skillful writing doesn’t
have to be dicult.
No other book approaches writing the way this book does, and no
other book teaches these techniques. Aer reading this book, you
will fully understand how to write bullets and “why” every word
matters.
In 2003 the author created a seminar to teach a fair and consistent
process to evaluate recognition packages. is seminar transformed
an entire organization within six months. Since then, the techniques
have decisively transformed the writing, recognition, and promo-
tions of every organization applying them.
e practices in this book continue to positively impact the Air
Force and sister services through professional military education. In
addition, the concepts have helped transitioning service members
and college students better communicate acquired capabilities and
competencies on their résumés. Read on to discover the “magic” and
open your eyes to a brand new way to look at writing.
Recent changes to the US Air Force enlisted promotion system
make it more important to document your very best accomplish-
ments. Under the new system, points come from the most recent en-
listed performance reports (EPR). e new system requires fewer
lines, so Airmen must communicate the best accomplishments and
not just words that ll the white space. is Magic of Bullet Writing
will ensure you know how to articulate not just what you are doing
but also convey your strongest competencies and capabilities so the
promotion board can fully assess your potential. Training materials
that correspond to the lessons in this book are available for free
download at http://www.brownbaglessons.com.
Are you ready for the magic?
xv
Introduction
e task of leadership is not to put greatness into people, but to
elicit it, for the greatness is there already.
—John Buchan, Scottish novelist, historian, and politician
Developing, coaching, and mentoring are my passion—investing
in others has brought more satisfaction than any individual accom-
plishment. So, it would seem the time and energy spent helping oth-
ers to succeed is returned twofold in contentment. at is what likely
inspired my mentors to make an impact early in my career.
While I don’t consider myself a “writer,” I do consider myself a
coach and mentor—someone who is willing to help others build a
brighter career. I have been presenting professional development
seminars for many years, as a job requirement but also, more impor-
tantly, as a personal passion.
From 2002 to present I shared techniques of military writing in
every forum imaginable. Whether presenting in a base theater, a con-
ference center, or via my laptop in a hotel room in Okinawa, Japan,
developing people is what makes me go.
e genesis of this book’s material was initially shared with small
groups. rough the years, audiences grew from dozens to more than
500 people at a time. During the last few years, the seminars reached
tens of thousands.. Like a light switched on, time and again, people
attending the seminar said, “I get it.”
is system has the potential not only to revolutionize how we ap-
proach bullets but also to transform our entire merit-based system.
In January 2012 the Air Force recognized the force-wide value and
inculcated the concepts into the SNCOA and SOS curricula. Before
being discontinued in 2014, over 28,300 students received this infor-
mation through the course curriculum.
I wholeheartedly recommend the principles outlined in this book.Our educa-
tion institutions incorporated these principles into curriculum for more than
5,000 company grade and senior non-commissioned ocers annually.
ere are three main reasons why each leader should embrace these tech-
niques. First, the writer is forced to ensure each bullet meets a set standard.
Second, it creates consistency and structure within the Air Force. By applying
these sound principles, leaders will assist with the evolution of our perfor-
mance evaluation system, awards boards, and even promotion boards by cre-
ating a systematic approach to bullet writing to remove ambiguity within each
INTRODUCTION
process. And third, these techniques add credibility to our system. Each bullet
will now have merit. erefore, every board member can easily assign a point
value to each bullet and be able to support the overall rating to fellow board
members. No longer will there be an ambiguous guess at how a board member
arrived at their rating. Each time I use these techniques on boards, it helps
identify the most deserving person.
—CMSgt Mark Bennett, USAF, retired
e most distinctive part is that these techniques do not teach
through conventional methods. ese principles teach from the op-
posite point of view, from the evaluation side for clear understanding.
I have observed thousands struggling to compose, articulate, and
formulate statements for recognition packages and performance ap-
praisals. People spent countless hours in frustration because they
were writing in vain, knowing that someone higher up would drench
the dra in red ink and send it back to rework with the document
looking nothing like the original. is frustration is still prevalent
today.
I simply cannot say it more clearly—“e struggle to write comes
to an end!” e countless hours of rewriting bullets stops here.
When I was at base level, I supervised military and civilian sta members. I
struggled to write the type of performance and award bullets this book
teaches. If I had received instruction of this caliber earlier in my career, my
packages would have been stronger and my sta properly recognized. e
techniques taught in this book should be included in the curriculum for all
supervisory training programs.
—Shelly Owczarski, DAF, retired
Chief, Air Force Materiel Command
Voluntary Education Program
ose who learn this method, whether they have been a supervi-
sor for two or 22 years, express how benecial it would have been if
the techniques were accessible much earlier in their career. Some
were adamantly upset because they struggled for so long.
Since learning this process I’ve authored two major command, eight num-
bered Air Force, and over 100 wing and group level to this process. I still use
the training slides given to me by Eric to mentor the men and women in my
squadron. All I’ve received is positive feedback on how the process has
helped make them better writers. I’m thankful I’m able to share this standard
with the folks in my wing.
—CMSgt Edward Ames, USAF, retired
xvi
xvii
All supervisors incur a responsibility for counseling, conducting
feedback, and documenting performance. e techniques taught in
this book directly apply to all of these applications.
e Magic of Bullet Writing saves time by reducing edit and review
work by half or more. Productivity increases because backlogged re-
ports are transferred o your desk. Nevertheless, there is more! It also
makes your employees more productive because they’ll compose re-
ports correctly the rst time. e vicious cycle of reports going back
and forth ends.
As you begin, I would like to point out a unique aspect of the book.
Brown Bag Notes are in each chapter. ese provide a useful setup to
facilitate mentoring sessions.
I am grateful for contributing to a system that has enlightened so
many and provided such a return on investment. Please enjoy the
book in its entirety.
INTRODUCTION
Part 1
Timeless Lessons
In the movie e Matrix, Morpheus asked Neo to choose the blue pill,
which oers security and blissful ignorance, or the red pill, which
provides freedom and, perhaps painful, truth. Most of us would se-
lect the blue pill when it comes to writing. Trust me; the wool has
been pulled over our eyes through repetitive bad habit. Reading the
rst three chapters of this book is like taking the red pill. Your eyes
will be opened to the world of writing in a whole new way. Once you
know the truth you will see everything dierently aerward, just as in
the movie.
However, just seeing the truth is not enough. Aer seeing the Matrix
for what it was, Neo had to relearn everything about life. So, the trick
is to not just see anew but also to learn anew.
is book includes numerous writing tips, but the premise of the
book is to teach a technique called the “magic.” e best part—you
will apply the magic in the remaining chapters. It’s time to enter the
rabbit hole.
Chapter 1
Genesis
Let there be light.
—Genesis 1:3
While a promotion may catapult someone to supervisory status,
it does not guarantee prociency in the written word.
An organization can be transformed by teaching how to score rec-
ognition packages.
A simple three-step process identies the strengths and weak-
nesses of each bullet.
Scoring packages makes you a better writer.
Eective writing is a major part of supervisory responsibilities, yet
very little time is spent actually learning how to write eectively.
While a promotion may catapult someone to supervisor status, it
does not guarantee prociency in the written word. In 2002, to com-
bat poor writing, I taught a course entitled “How to Write Perfor-
mance Reports.” Regardless of how oen the course was taught, there
was minimal to no improvement. For 12 months the pile of blue fold-
ers holding performance reports on my desk never shrunk.
Unfortunately, many are promoted without the writing pro-
ciency needed for success.
Most supervisors only write one or two performance reports each
year. No matter how well intentioned, the majority of supervisors do
not have the experience nor the skills to write well, and the writing
course wasn’t helping. e ability to write is the sum of your entire
education, experience, and practice—as well as natural gis and tal-
ents. You cannot teach someone to become a signicantly better
writer during a one-hour seminar.
Everything changed in 2003. Out of the blue, the group superin-
tendent, 615th Air Mobility Operations Group, CMSgt Manuel
Sarmiento, directed a change to the way recognition packages were
scored. e new process included noncommissioned ocers (NCO)
and senior NCOs (SNCO), a practice commonly used across the Air
4 │ JAREN
Force today. Chief “Sam” put out a call for sharp NCOs to participate
in the upcoming board. Soon aer, replies ooded my inbox and the
rst volunteer was knocking on my door. He said, “Sergeant Jaren, I
volunteer, but I don’t know how to score awards. Is there training
available?”
I vividly recalled lessons learned during my assignment at the 15th
Air Force and knew they needed to be shared. at evening I stayed
late to write down practices learned years earlier. In the coming days,
several senior leaders—the squadron rst sergeant, MSgt Alexander
Perry; the operations superintendent, MSgt Christopher Powell; and
the operations ight chief, MSgt Anderson Aupiu—contributed ef-
fective feedback for the training seminar.
A simple three-step process identies the strengths and weaknesses
of each bullet.
e heart of the training centered on evaluating each accomplish-
ment against the levels of expected performance. e process applied
a simple three-step process to evaluate the strength and weakness of
each bullet. ese levels are explained in later chapters and form the
genesis of better writing.
A stunning breakthrough asserted itself soon aer delivering the
seminars—the blue folders began to go away. e magic began. By
“scoring” bullets against “levels” of performance, better understand-
ing and writing ensued.
I rst ran into one of Chief Jaren’s Brown Bag Lessons by happenstance. I put
it on my calendar and convinced myself I was too busy. I planned on skipping
it until my boss pointed at the clock and informed me I had somewhere to be.
ere are moments in your life where you reluctantly hear something that
ends up changing your vector in life. Military writing and frankly that aspect
of supervising seemed so transactional to me. e Chief’s system is a contin-
uum that categorizes our eorts by aligning those eorts with our resulting
impact on our people and our Air Force. e good, the bad, and the ugly all
can conform to the Action, Impact, Result model, but without the Chief ’s
system my writing skills lacked direction. is system is a commonsense ap-
proach that is ingenious in its simplicity.
—CMSgt Justin Deisch, USAF
Fast forward to the present. While advances in technology make
routing blue folders obsolete, the virtual “stack” of performance re-
ports is gone and remains o my desk! I realize this is not the only
successful method for writing performance bullets, but over the past
GENESIS │ 5
decade, these techniques allowed my organizations to be recognized
at the highest levels.
In 2012 I came across the strongest report I had ever read. e
author oers his thoughts:
Every bullet I wrote fed the notion . . . to give your best to the people who
deserve it. Bullets tend to write themselves when you realize the weight they
must bear in a person’s career.
e simplest way to cra every bullet is divide them into three distinct parts—
What . . . How . . . Result/Impact. Every bullet must begin by answering the
question “What did the individual do?” e bullet must inform the reader at
the very beginning if the individual was a member/follower in the task, a
decision-maker, or a leader/mentor.
e “How” section highlights what was done to accomplish the “What,” which
introduced the bullet. Numbers identify the accomplishment’s magnitude.
e rst word is oen a verb ending with “ed.”
Impact can be personnel, unit, base, etc., and may reach all of the way up to
the Department of Defense. Numbers are critical here. Money/time/man-
hour savings, high percentages achieved, accolades, or low failure/loss rates
are all great result/impact descriptors.
In general, put a leadership bullet with far-reaching impact in the most im-
portant “top and bottom” lines of your report. Work your way down from
there to the member/follower bullet impacts. Hopefully, you will have most,
or all, of the space lled up with higher level eects and not have to use the low
impact lines at all.
To sum it up, the magic of bullet writing starts with the right attitude. Do the
right thing for your people . . . they deserve nothing less.
—Lt Col Robert O. Stroebel, USAF, retired
Scoring packages makes you a better writer.
e magic is a three-step process that teaches you to read with a
critical eye. You will know as you write the bullet how it will be scored
and whether that score truly measures the accomplishment. You will
also learn what not to write. at is what this book is going to do—
teach you to score awards, with the second order eect of making you
a more ecient and accomplished writer.
With the genesis of bullet writing magic behind us, read on to dis-
cover how to build a better mousetrap through line-by-line scoring.
Chapter 2
A Better Mousetrap
Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to
your door.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
Line-by-line scoring prevents halo and horn eects.
Line-by-line scoring saves an incredible amount of time. Interrup-
tions do not impact the outcome.
Score one line at a time for a fair and consistent approach.
Line-item scoring helps resolve tiebreakers; it reveals the strongest
and weakest parts of a package.
is chapter shows the importance of line-by-line scoring. Scoring
is integral to becoming a better writer. Let’s go back a little further to
understand how, born out of frustration, this principle built the bet-
ter mousetrap.
In 1998, as the 15th Air Force C-141 and C-17 aircra weapons
system manager, I had additional duties that included reviewing an-
nual recognition packages. ese encompassed everything from in-
dividual awards like the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
omas N. Barnes Crew Chief of the Year to team packages like the
Air Force Maintenance Eectiveness Award.
Individual recognition packages were two pages long. With 12
nominees in dozens of categories, the process was labor-intensive
and daunting. Nevertheless, individual package work was easy com-
pared to the Maintenance Eectiveness Award. ese were 15 pages
long, highlighting a year’s worth of organizational accomplishments.
With four categories ranging from small to large units, there were
30–40 packages to rank.
My rst attempt to score 15 pages was a complete disaster. I vividly
recall a tall stack hitting my desk for just one category. To top it o,
each package was replete with statistics, dollar amounts, time savings,
and an unlimited quantity of scientic measurements to compare
competing units. One really needed to pay attention.
8 │ JAREN
e initial package took almost all morning. I intently read every
line with full attention. When the time came to assign a score, I dis-
covered the guiding instruction only required a value between six
and 10 points using half-point increments. Somehow it seemed odd
to read hundreds of lines and facts that were then to be boiled down
to a single digit between six and ten.
Line-by-line scoring prevents halo and horn eects.
Without reading the other packages, there was no context to which
one could relate a score. I had no feel for it. I remember wondering
what the right score should be. It was a pretty solid package and a
great eort captured. Aer much contemplation, I decided to score
an “8.5” to establish a baseline.
While this seemed like a good start to the process, it’s too easy to
feel good or bad about an entire package based on rst impressions.
Was “8.5” a credible score? If it “seemed” strong from the general
positive impression of words or accomplishments, the halo eect can
easily give a score too high and unearned. In contrast, one negative
bullet may drive the “horn” eect, where the entire package is scored
lower. As we will see, line-by-line scoring will prevent these eects.
Line-by-line scoring saves an incredible amount of time.
I picked up a second package but had to stop to attend the weekly
sta meeting. Next, a phone call reprioritized my morning and lunch.
By the time I resumed, I couldn’t recall everything I read on the rst
two pages and had to make a fresh start. About halfway through
again, another phone call and another meeting led to another chance
to start over. Time was slipping by. ere had to be a better way.
CMSgt omas E. Jones, the strategic airli branch chief, saw my
frustration and shared his technique. He showed me how to break the
package into small pieces which encouraged a fair and consistent ap-
proach.
As the HH-60 Program Manager in Special Operations Command, the sta
scored the major command annual awards. I had some experience; however,
like Eric Jaren at Fieenth Air Force, there was no clear direction or docu-
mented process on how to score packages. As a result, there would be dierent
winners amongst board members. With those dierences, board members
would rescore and if necessary discuss dierences. I found in those discus-
sions it was dicult for members to easily support why a particular package
was better than another. Aer relooking at the packages, I would sometimes
A BETTER MOUSETRAP │ 9
notice an accomplishment I did not remember or notice something written as
an individual accomplishment with no clear tie to the individual’s actions.
Bottom line, despite trying my very best, I was not always sure I’d gotten it
right. at was unacceptable.
To resolve this, I began using and developing the line-by-line scoring method
described in this book for three reasons. One, the scoring of packages would
oen be interrupted and by scoring each line, I wouldn’t be forced to start
over. Two, line-by-line scoring put me in a better position to discuss the mer-
its of a package if there wasn’t agreement amongst board members. And three,
most importantly, it helped to ensure I was selecting the best package.
—CMSgt omas E. Jones, USAF, retired
Now it did not matter if I was interrupted. In this system you can
resume right where scoring le o without wasted eort. is benet
alone makes the system a better mousetrap. But there’s more.
Score one line at a time for a fair and consistent approach.
An added strength of Chief Jones’s approach included standard-
ized scoring which assured fairness and consistency. Fairness in-
cluded removing the halo or horn eects as well as establishing a
standard. Consistency thrived in the integrity to a known standard
instead of going by “feeling.” Bottom line, the scoring system could be
trusted.
Chief Jones scored every bullet one line at a time. A strong accom-
plishment scored half of a point. If an accomplishment impacted be-
yond the organization, it scored one point. When it made strategic-
level impact it scored one and a half points. If the bullet was poorly
written, Chief Jones le a goose egg. When nished, he only had to
count up the points in the right margin to see which package had the
highest score, reecting the strongest accomplishments. Many num-
ber systems work; the important takeaway is to work it line-by-line.
Line scoring helps resolve tiebreakers; it reveals the strongest and
weakest parts of a package.
Another benet of line scoring is tiebreaker resolution. By divid-
ing scores into line-item pieces, board members can refer to their
tally in the event of a tie. More importantly, each can justify and dis-
cuss in detail why a given score was assigned.
is better mousetrap saved an incredible amount of time. Boards
using this process were fair and consistent; system trust was estab-
10 │ JAREN
lished and secured. Tiebreakers were resolved with condence. I used
this method for three years until the concept was integrated and im-
proved upon in the new scoring program designed for the 715th Air
Mobility Squadron. e next chapter builds on the vital necessity for
a consistent approach.
Chapter 3
A Consistent Approach
For me the challenge isn’t to be dierent but to be consistent.
—Joan Jett
Apply the system fairly and consistently, whether scoring each line
up to one point, two points, or by the use of dashes, crosses, or
circles.
Dierent boards can apply a fair and consistent process and ar-
rive at a dierent outcome.
Remove personal experience that introduces bias and, uninten-
tionally, reeks of the “good-ole boy” system, favoritism, or politics.
Consider the time of day you score. Be sure to score on the same
day and at the same time if possible. Changes in rest, nutrition,
exercise, and stress can aect consistency.
Valid results are critical in testing. No matter the scoring system, a
consistent approach gives validity and creates a fair result. Line item
scoring led the 715th Air Mobility Squadron to a signicant time sav-
ings and provided fairness. Incorporating this principle also led to
better writing through the new awards-scoring seminar.
Our award-scoring seminars gained momentum at the squadron.
Early on, only a dozen attended but numbers grew until the confer-
ence room was at maximum capacity. Later, people attended even
though they weren’t participating in a board.
People who struggled to write bullets throughout an entire career
suddenly understood.
It was as if a light switch was turned on as they walked out. Feed-
back was amazing and we kept hearing, “I get it now.” Even better, the
“scoring seminar” actually revealed writing aws. ose who strug-
gled to write bullets through an entire career suddenly understood.
We were happy as those pesky blue folder stacks magically disap-
peared from desks. at’s when more magic happened.
Aer teaching the seminar to a majority of our squadron, some-
thing very important occurred. e 715th received a disproportion-
ately high number of below-the-zone early promotions, quarterly
awards, and annual awards. You can only imagine the impact this had
12 │ JAREN
on morale. Within the principles taught in this book is the expecta-
tion to perform at a level commensurate with your grade, or above.
e group had four organizations with basically identical mis-
sions, composed of the same 20 career specialties. It should be virtu-
ally impossible to receive more awards than one or two standard de-
viations from an equal number of awards. We weren’t trying to sweep
awards. Supervisors merely composed solid packages that reected
the hard work and contributions of the Airmen serving in their work
sections. And 715th Airmen were leading, not just participating. We
were managing entire projects, not just supporting the eort.
ere was a second order eect as the entire organization stepped
up its overall level of performance. In the end, we were building lead-
ers at every level of the organization and documenting the results
better than the rest. We were proud, we had spirit, and if you were
7-1-5, you also knew what comes aer—“push-ups.”
While the overall goal of the seminar and this book is to under-
stand how to evaluate bullet writing and, through that medium, be-
come better at writing, an important underlying tenet is a consistent
approach. No matter the scoring rubric, CMSgt Dave Gilmore
summed up this principle:
Lack of standardization is a bad thing and cannot be measured while stan-
dardization provides consistency and can be measured.
—CMSgt Dave Gilmore, USAF, retired
Readers need to know that the system presented in this book is not
the only one that works. While we were building the seminar, I dis-
covered Chief Sam used a similar technique. He too scored line-by-
line, but used symbols instead of numbers.
Whether scoring each line to one point, two points or use dashes,
crosses, or circles, apply the system fairly and consistently.
When the chief saw a strong bullet, he marked a dash “-” in the
margin. If the accomplishment was signicant, he crossed the dash
with a “+.” When the accomplishment had a strategic level impact he
distinguished the line by drawing a circle “0” around the “+.” Consis-
tency was the key in this approach. Scores were then tallied to reveal
the strongest package.
Board members cannot infer, anticipate, or assume what the indi-
vidual accomplished. ey are charged to read the package. Unfortu-
nately, if an individual’s achievement was not documented fully in the
A CONSISTENT APPROACH │ 13
recognition package, the accomplishment cannot be fully evaluated.
It is not the outcome but the consistent approach that adds integrity
to the process. In the nal equation, trust matters. So what about ap-
plying the board member’s personal experience?
Personal experience introduces bias and, unintended, reeks of the
good ole’ boy system, favoritism, or politics.
Some may argue against a strict line-by-line analysis and favor us-
ing “personal experience.” Applying this may seem right at the time
but will lead down a slippery slope wrought with valid concerns over
fairness and bias. You know what they say—perception is reality. A
common example is cited by SMSgt Alan Braden:
As a Career Assistance Advisor, I’m frequently asked to score award packages
across the base because I have a broad scope on the installation. Sitting on
countless boards, I learned many write to “their audience” instead of the
reader. For example, when our Security Forces Airmen emphasize their
“TTPs” [techniques, tactics, and procedures] and “BDOC C3” [Base Defense
Operations Center, command, control, and communications] plans, I am of-
ten scratching my head on how that applies to me. While their eorts are
surely impressive, they have forgotten to write to ‘their intended audience’
which is a medic, bomb loader, etc. . . . You get the picture!
—SMSgt Alan Braden, USAF, retired
Another reason to remove personal experience subjectivity is that
it provides no value when a dispute arises. is is critically important,
so chapter 10 is dedicated to discussing the need for a fair and consis-
tent dispute process.
Dierent boards can apply a fair and consistent process and ar-
rive at a dierent outcome.
To be completely honest we must recognize that people have dif-
ferent values, beliefs, experiences, education, and backgrounds. We
do not think the same; the best part about the consistent approach is
that it accommodates this diversity. Dierent boards can apply a con-
sistent process and arrive at dierent conclusions. When this hap-
pens, both conclusions are fair.
Consider the following:
Board “A” evaluates a set of recognition packages and determines candidate #1
to be the winner. Board “B” follows the same process, but determines candi-
date #2 to be the winner. Consider the scores between the two packages are
within 1/2 of a point, virtually the same score. If both boards used a consistent
process, then both boards would be correct and fair in their outcome.
14 │ JAREN
Chief Sam explains his method:
I normally review my packages at night but the rst thing I do is to fold the
headings so that the nominee’s name is covered. Aer scoring the packages, I
will tally the scores rst thing in the morning. On some cases, I have to review
the notes I inserted while scoring line by line. e notes clarify or become
memory joggers adding the scores in the morning.
—CMSgt Manuel Sarmiento, USAF, retired
While this works for the chief, it may not work for everyone. Strive
to score on the same day and at the same time if possible. Changes in
rest, nutrition, exercise, and stress can aect consistency. For example,
if you are a morning person you may be more generous in the morning
and stingy in the evening. It doesn’t matter if you are stingy or gener-
ous; the scoring curve will be consistent if your evaluation is at the
same time of the day.
Both boards applied consistent measurement. Both boards consid-
ered every candidate and each one’s accomplishments. In following a
consistent scoring process, board results are trustworthy. Consis-
tency is practiced by removing personal experience from scoring
each accomplishment. ese principles assure a fair outcome regard-
less of the winner.
e rst three chapters capture the timeless lessons of bullet writ-
ing. We nally understood what we had created. At the end of the day
we learned that the seminar taught us to stop writing weak bullet
statements. With no more stacks of performance reports and annual
award results o the charts, the seminar produced a magical result in
creating better writers. ere was a second order eect as the entire
organization stepped up its overall level of performance. Writers
grew superior at evaluating performance and recognizing the accom-
plishments of people. Giving credit where credit is due and awarding
the right people is the cornerstone of recognizing and promoting our
greatest asset . . . our Airmen.
e Magic of Bullet Writing is a great tool, foundation, and guideline for any
organization. If used and consistently trained to newly assigned members
your organization will see an uprising of performance reports, award pack-
ages, and even general correspondence going to higher levels, staying and not
being sent back for corrections.
—James Shepherd
Former USAF technical sergeant
e next chapters dig deep into bullet formats and performance
levels to fully explain the magic of bullet writing.
Part 2
e Magic
It is much more dicult to measure nonperformance than per-
formance.
—Harold S. Geneen, American businessman
Part 2 reviews standard bullet formats with an emphasis on linking
the tactical, operational, and strategic concepts to the elements in a
bullet. Performance levels are discussed, and then demonstration is
provided regarding how to use them to interpret degrees of action,
impact, and results. Finally, steps are combined to create the magic!
It’s as easy as one, two, three.
e next three chapters will approach writing from a completely dif-
ferent angle. e intent is not to teach you a basic 101-level course on
how to write bullet statements. Consider the next three chapters an
advanced 301-level course on eective bullet writing.
While this book includes numerous writing tips, the premise is to
teach a technique called the “magic.” e best part—you can apply
the magic immediately aer reading this section.
Chapter 4
Bullet Formats
Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think
with their minds.
—Albert Einstein
Two- and three-part bullets are essentially the same. Two-part
bullets are divided into accomplishment-impact (AI) statements.
ree-part bullets, the prevailing bullet format used today, are
divided into action-impact-result (AIR) statements.
e tactical-operational-strategic (TOS) concept connects ele-
ments well and explains why some elements do not connect well.
Bullets can be composed with any part and in any order. Readers
typically start at the beginning of the bullet; so, skilled writers po-
sition the most important elements at the beginning of the bullet.
Albert Einstein’s quote reveals that we see with our eyes what we
want to see—without thinking about what we are actually seeing. To
help think through bullet writing, we must have a process to do so.
is chapter is intended to refresh your memory on the standard bul-
let formats that are used to write packages, appraisals, and papers.
Just as a football team relies on basic plays for its success, the perfor-
mance writer relies on standard bullet formats to deliver statements
that score.
First, we will review the formatting process to make sure we are on
the same page. Next will be an introduction to the TOS concept and
how it is applied to bullet statements. Finally, examples are given to
identify and understand bullet components with the TOS concept.
Bullet Formats
Pick your poison—two-part or three-part bullets. Either one is
suitable for communicating accomplishments. Believe it or not, some
people get hung up on the precise format of a bullet. Hopefully this
chapter will explain how not to get stuck on format and to concen-
trate on content.
18 │ JAREN
roughout my career, I honed bullet writing skills by listening to NCOs
above me. At Edwards Air Force Base, I was chosen to write the unit’s Mainte-
nance Eectiveness Award along with another NCO. In part due to our ef-
forts, the squadron won the Air Force Materiel Command’s Maintenance Ef-
fectiveness Award for 2005. However, I knew I had a lot more to learn and was
always on the lookout for new ways to hone my skills. Flashing forward a few
years, I was still at Edwards on the Joint Strike Fighter Program. e base ad-
opted the consistent scoring guidelines outlined in this book. Using those
techniques helped me earn one of my Airmen a base level award and also
helped write a package for the Ten Outstanding Young Americans for 2010.
at Master Sergeant was chosen from hundreds of candidates nationwide to
make the nal list of 10!
—MSgt Casey T. Schoettmer, USAF, retired
Accomplishment-Impact Format
Air Force Handbook 33-337, e Tongue and Quill, illustrated the
two-part bullet as the standard format for documenting performance
appraisals, recognition packages, and a variety of background papers.
ese two-part bullets are divided into AI components.
e AI format succinctly documents performance and eliminates
unnecessary words that detract from the accomplishment itself. Brev-
ity is the goal. A further examination of the elements is worthwhile.
Accomplishment Element
e accomplishment element describes the behavior or action of
the individual. is critical component describes exactly what the in-
dividual did. I cannot stress this enough. A routine mistake made by
writers is not stating what the person specically did. Instead, writers
are caught in a trap of ambiguity, which only serves to detract from
the accomplishment. You will learn to quickly identify these writing
traps in chapter 8.
Impact Element
e impact element characterizes the result of the behavior. is
component is vital to relating relative importance of the action. It
gives scope and serves as the connective tissue between the action
and the result. e stronger the connection, the stronger the bullet.
Later, the TOS concept will explain this strength of connection.
BULLET FORMATS │ 19
Author’s Tip: e two-part and three-part bullets are essentially the same.
Please note the emphasized words above. Notice that Action-
Impact-Result in the two-part description corresponds exactly to the
three-part bullet. is shows that both formats are made of essen-
tially the same ingredients.
Action-Impact-Result Format
e prevalent method used today is three parts: Action-Impact-
Result. Similar to the two-part bullet, writers are driven to squeeze
everything into one line. It is unknown whom to credit for the three-
part format, but it now governs as the unocial standard. It captures
what the person did, what the action impacted, and the end result of
the action.
Action Element
e action must clearly describe the individual’s specic contribu-
tion. Without an individual’s clear action, you don’t have a bullet for
which to credit. e action should not only describe the individual’s
performance but also dene the “level” of performance. Did the
member perform a task, or was the action performed at a higher
level? Ambiguous or unclear statements make it dicult to under-
stand how much value to attribute to the overall accomplishment.
Impact Element
e impact element explains how the individual’s performance in-
uenced the next level and provides scope or inuence. It also serves
as a connector between the action and the result. e stronger the
connection between the action and result, the better the bullet. When
there is a poor connection, it is dicult to attribute the result to the
action.
Result Element
e result qualies the outcome of the individual’s eorts. is be-
comes the measuring stick and establishes the contribution’s value.
Tie the results to the big picture. If the results are strategic, then it is
important that the impact clearly connects to the individual’s eorts.
Sometimes writers skip this connection, and the jump to strategic
20 │ JAREN
level seems far-fetched. is is the perfect lead in to the Tactical-
Operational-Strategic Concept.
Tactical-Operational-Strategic Concept
e TOS concept explains why some elements do or do not con-
nect well. But what are the denitions of TOS levels? Paraphrasing
Air Force Doctrine, Volume 2 - Leadership (2015):
Tactical Level: Tactical expertise in the Air Force encompasses
chiey the unit and sub-unit levels where individuals perform
specic tasks that, in the aggregate, contribute to the execution of
operations at the operational level.
Operational Level: At this level, the tactical skills and expertise
Airmen developed earlier are employed alongside new leadership
opportunities to aect an entire theater or joint operations area.
Strategic Level: At this level, an Airman’s required competencies
transition from the integration of people with missions to lead-
ing and directing exceptionally complex and multi-tiered orga-
nizations.
e use of TOS highlights faulty writing techniques, such as when
a bullet jumps from tactical to strategic. Simply said, it is not likely for
tactical-level actions to aect strategic results when the actions do
not clearly connect. A strong connection is necessary to receive
credit. Without it, many will nd zero value and score accordingly.
TOS serves as a guide, not a rule.
TOS Model
Figure 1 illustrates a strong bullet with strategic results that con-
nect well to the individual. Notice the bullet moves through each
level (action is tactical; impact is operational; and result is strategic).
is bullet would have a smooth and logical ow.
Understanding the TOS model helped me see through “farfetched” bullets
when scoring packages. Before learning this I would struggle trying to dissect
a bullet and oen rendered inappropriate value.
—CMSgt Edward Ames, USAF, retired
BULLET FORMATS │ 21
StrategicStrategic
Operational
Operational
Tactical
Tactical
Figure 1. Tactical-Operational-Strategic
Figure 2 illustrates a bullet written at the tactical level. Notice how
each component of the bullet is at the tactical level. is bullet would
also have a logical ow.
TacticalTactical TacticalTactical
Figure 2. Tactical-Tactical-Tactical
22 │ JAREN
Figure 3 illustrates a bullet written at the operational level. is
example also has a logical ow.
OperationalOperational
Tactical
TacticalTactical
Figure 3. Tactical-Tactical-Operational
Figure 4 is a disconnected bullet. e statement starts at the tacti-
cal level, but then it skips to the strategic level. Bullets composed in
this format make a poor connection because the contributions of the
individual do not connect to the strategic results. TOS explains this as
a “bridge too far” for the eort described.
TacticalTactical
Strategic
Strategic
Tactical
Figure 4. Tactical-Tactical-Strategic
Evaluating TOS
I cannot stress how important it is to describe the connection be-
tween levels in the bullet statement. TOS is not something to literally
write out, but it is a concept to help understand the congruence of a
bullet.
BULLET FORMATS │ 23
I’ve seen this TOS issue quite a few times while scoring packages. Aer seeing
a few TOS problems on the same nominee, package credibility was lost. I re-
member being asked by the board president, a Command Chief, why I scored
the package so low. e nominee was a maintainer and a few bullets missed
that connection. Another board member, also a maintainer, agreed with my
assessment. With line by line scoring and a lack of connection, it was easy to
explain my reasoning to the board president.
—CMSgt Manuel Sarmiento, USAF, retired
e example below shows the TOS model at work with example
bullets and explanations.
Tactical Element
—Replaced tire in half job standard
Tactical
In this example a crew chief changed a tire. e action is clear; so,
readers easily recognize the tactical performance.
Operational Element
—Replaced tire in half job standard; aircra launched on time
Tactical Operational
e operational element describes how the individual’s actions
impacted the mission. e rst two elements should unite without
confusion. e crew chief changed a tire in half the normally allotted
time, which allowed the aircra to launch on time. e aircra launch
expresses the operational component. is example is very clear.
Strategic Element
—Replaced tire in half standard; aircra launched on time—
bombs struck target
Tactical Operational Strategic
e strategic element conveys the wider impact resulting from the
action and impact. Aer launching the aircra, the jet was able to ful-
ll its mission of dropping bombs on target contributing to a strategic
result. is bullet is a good example of the TOS concept following the
24 │ JAREN
tactical-operational-strategic format. e connections are logical
from the tactical through strategic spectrum.
e next examples do not connect well.
—Replaced rivets on cargo door; $2B eet serviceable—C-5As
routed supplies
Tactical Strategic Strategic
e tactical accomplishment is clear. e individual changed riv-
ets on a cargo door. e problem is that the strategic level impact and
results do not connect to the action. ese linkages need to be direct
and not casual. Evaluators typically give zero credit for this bullet be-
cause it is far-fetched. Information that explains how one individual
replacing rivets on one door impacted the entire $2 billion eet is
missing. Additionally, more information is needed to understand
how changing rivets led to supplies being delivered by multiple air-
cra (in this case it was a eet C-5As). Bottom line: if the report does
not say the individual worked on enough parts for a $2 billion eet of
aircra, he/she did not. e individual merely replaced rivets on one
door, and that is tactical level only.
Flu
Before going forward, it is critical to introduce another concept.
Some call it weak writing; others call it ambiguous writing, but the
most common term is u. When an accomplishment falls below an
expected performance level, this is considered u, which is not valu-
able for recognition or merit. Remember at least one component in
each bullet must include action. Without action, you cannot conrm
the individual’s presence. Ambiguous action will impact the overall
score much more than an ambiguous result. When the word narra-
tive picture begins with u, the contribution will not clearly connect
to the results. Many will nd zero value and score accordingly.
e owing is an example of u:
—Incredible leader; essential to PERSCO [personnel support for
contingency operations] team—250 Airmen deployed to AOR
[area of responsibility]
Fluff Fluff Operational
BULLET FORMATS │ 25
e action and impact are u, and the reader cannot decipher
what the person did. “Incredible leader” does not describe perfor-
mance. “Essential” is intangible and does not describe impact. Saying
they are does not make it so. e only tangible part is the result. Un-
fortunately, the lack of action and impact prevents the individual
from receiving credit for the result.
Here is another example where the lead-in and result are am-
biguous.
—Vital member of team; processed 2K orders—sustained AOR
mission
Fluff Operational Fluff
e important thing to remember about TOS is that members
should only be credited for action, impact, and result that can be
clearly connected. Do not be inuenced by a series of superlatives,
adverbs, or other jargon that neglects the actual performance.
Which Format Is Best?
Do not get confused if the bullet does not follow typical format-
ting. Writers can use a two-part bullet and, at other times, a three-
part bullet. Writers will even forgo punctuation marks, and the state-
ment reads more like a complete sentence. Bottom line, bullets can be
written in any format, just be sure to know which components are
present and identify the value. Regardless of format, remember to
capture the interest of the reader.
To better understand the importance of attracting and keeping the reader’s
attention, I give you this example: If watching a movie doesn’t draw you in by
the rst 15 minutes, don’t [sic] draw you in, most won’t continue to watch it.
Also, if the movie has you on the edge of your seat throughout, but the ending
really stunk, most will not recommend it to a friend. Human nature tells us if
we don’t attract the evaluator’s attention quickly and sustain it, you will not
achieve the intended results. So whichever format is best (2-part versus
3-part), I would argue whichever technique achieves this dynamic is the best.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
26 │ JAREN
Now let’s look at examples of the basic formats to expect.
Example 1: 2-part bullet
—Changed aircra tire in 1 hour; repair returned aircra fully
mission capable
Accomplishment Impact
Example 2: 3-part bullet
—Changed aircra tire; repaired in 1 hour—aircra fully mission
capable
Action Impact Result
Example 3: Complete sentence
—Changed aircra tire in 1 hour returning the aircra to fully
mission capable
Action Impact Result
In the above examples, the same actions and results were recorded
and should receive the same value.
Alternative Formats: Reverse or Inverted for Maximum Eect
Conventional wisdom explains the standard techniques should
begin with an action element. e ensuing examples illustrate this is
not always true.
Example 1: Standard 3-part bullet
—Rewrote technical data; corrected assembly errors—avoided
minor wear
Action Impact Result
is example is a three-part bullet with standard action, impact,
and result components. No components are particularly strong, but
they are clear. Carefully observe how the structure of the bullet
changes depending on the strength of the components.
BULLET FORMATS │ 27
Example 2: Reverse 3-part bullet
—Avoided $20M damage! Rewrote technical data; corrected
safety errors
Result Action Impact
Example 2 is a reverse format. Strong writers move results to the
beginning when they are the most signicant part of the bullet. Re-
arranging the bullet ensures the $20 million cost avoidance is not
overlooked by the reader. e bottom line—do not bury informa-
tion. Engineer bullets to help readers clearly see the important parts.
One More Example Set
Example 1: Standard 2-part bullet
—Rewrote technical data to correct assembly errors; avoided
$1.6K wear
Accomplishment Impact
Example 2: Reverse 3-part bullet
—Prevented eet grounding! Rewrote technical data; avoided
$1.6K wear
Impact Action Result
In this example, the action and result are not strong but the eet-
wide impact is signicant. e bullet was rearranged so the notewor-
thy part was highlighted at the front.
Putting It All Together
Either two-part or three-part bullets are suitable to eectively
communicate performance. Furthermore, bullets can be composed
with any part in any order. Skilled writers can position the strongest
components at the front of the bullet to strengthen the odds the in-
formation will not be overlooked. Engineer the bullet so the most
28 │ JAREN
important parts will not be missed. Do not make the reader hunt for
the important information. Following these tips will ensure you make
the most persuasive environment possible for success.
Chapter 5
Performance Levels
Management is eciency in climbing the ladder of success;
leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the
right wall.
—Stephen Covey, American businessman/educator
Performance levels are not intended to be literal; rather they char-
acterize varying degrees of involvement.
To apply performance levels, look at each piece of the bullet sepa-
rately and assign a level to that specic component. If the compo-
nent is weak or ambiguous, assign a lower performance level or
call it u.
Break down ambiguous components. You must be able to distin-
guish between those who “walk the walk” from those who only
“talk the talk.” Determine what the person actually did.
Challenge: select a few bullets from a local award package or per-
formance report. Work with others to evaluate the bullet and
compare notes. How did you do?
Stephen Covey’s management and leadership description is very
appropriate for this chapter. Performance levels are important for
scoring and, in turn, writing. ey are dened by interpreting the
degree of action, impact, and result corresponding to the level of per-
formance recorded. Performance levels include leadership, manage-
ment, supervisory, and membership. A nonperformance bullet is
called “u.” is model is a cornerstone of the magic.
Performance Levels
Do not confuse performance levels with performance. Do not take
the denition literally. Instead, use levels to characterize varying de-
grees of action, impact, and result conveyed in the bullet. When read-
ing, you must discern the context of the word in addition to the de-
gree of its characterization.
“As leaders move through successively higher echelons in the Air
Force, they need a wider portfolio of competencies,” Air Force Doc-
trine, Volume 2 - Leadership states. Performance levels correlate with
30 │ JAREN
the development of Airmen and should reect the level commensu-
rate with rank and accomplishment. Airmen at the membership level
reect performance in competencies needed for their job. At the su-
pervisory level, Airmen are expected to perform at a higher level to
advance the organization’s responsibilities. Management and leader-
ship skills inuence the entire organization and beyond as Airmen
continue to advance.
Let me take you back to 2001 to explain the origin of performance
levels. Part of the curriculum of the Senior Noncommissioned O-
cer Academy included a discussion on motivational commitment
levels. e exercise included the relevance of three levels—member-
ship, performance, and involvement. e classroom exercise illus-
trated the higher performance and involvement levels of activity ex-
pected and how to achieve these levels.
I vividly recall the instructor lecturing how senior NCOs should
perform at a level of involvement commensurate with their rank and
grade. Periodically the instructor would say, “Hey, way to be at mem-
bership level” just to drive home the point. is was a way of dening
someone who performed a minimal task such as taking out the trash
or doing homework.
e point about the performance levels is that you need to docu-
ment (and perform) above your position or grade. Membership-level
performance likely will not separate you from your peers, and if it
does, it may separate you the wrong way.
Although there were only three com-
mitment levels described at the acad-
emy, I expanded my model to four per-
formance levels due to the importance
Air Force Instruction 36-2618, e En-
listed Force Structure, places on con-
tinuing to develop leadership and man-
agement skills. Four levels—membership,
supervisory, management, and leader-
ship—present a model that corresponds
well to rank structures.
Performance Model
Figure 5 expresses the performance-level model. In broad brush
terms, it reects how you can go from oor sweeper to the boss. Al-
though the portrayal revolves around the military, the premise can be
Four levels—
membership,
supervisory,
management, and
leadership—present
a model that
corresponds well to
rank structures.
PERFORMANCE LEVELS │ 31
universally applied to any system. Each step in the ladder reects in-
creased responsibility, and, more important, increased expectation.
Leadership
Management
Supervisory
Membership
Figure 5. Performance-level model
Membership denes the apprentice to journeyman and the junior
ranks. e supervisory level includes journeymen, supervisors, and
NCOs. Management comprises crasmen and senior NCOs. Lastly,
and this can be dicult contextually, the leadership level describes
the contribution that anyone can perform well above expectations.
Similar to ambiguous writing, if an accomplishment is below an ex-
pected performance level, is it worth documenting on the perfor-
mance report or recognition package? e principle behind perfor-
mance levels is not what you are capable of but what is expected.
I like to use the crawl-walk-run example when explaining each performance
level. e question must be asked, “what am I being asked to do”? When per-
forming at the membership level, I’m being asked to crawl, at the supervisory
level we walk, at the management level we jog, and at the leadership level we
are running.
—CMSgt Wesley Riopel, USAF, retired
Performance Denitions
e following are basic denitions of performance levels. Please
do not get caught up in literal denitions. Levels are used incremen-
tally to denote various degrees of action, impact, and results.
32 │ JAREN
Membership
Membership-level performance infers tactical-level activities on a
small scale. ese actions are the building blocks toward larger ac-
complishments. ese eorts depict contributions of a junior Air-
man, an apprentice, or the expected daily tasking of someone higher
ranked:
• Job performance in your primary duty includes helping, assist-
ing, participating, and supporting.
• Self-improvement describes short training courses, college
classes, exams like the College-Level Examination Program
(CLEP)—things that would be considered the building blocks
toward more signicant educational accomplishments.
• Base and community involvement includes helping, assisting,
participating, and supporting.
• Mentoring includes your impact on the people in your charge.
Supervisory
Supervisory-level performance is tactical or operational in nature.
ese eorts depict actions normally accomplished by NCOs or jour-
neymen:
• Job performance includes oversight or supervision of a small
group, small team, or small program and taking charge of tacti-
cal activities.
• Self-improvement describes short in-residence or correspon-
dence courses or certications and completion of career devel-
opment courses, and completion of the Community College of
the Air Force (CCAF) degree.
• Base and community involvement includes oversight or super-
vision of small groups or small teams and organizing/leading
small-scale base and community activities.
• Mentoring includes impact on the Airmen in your charge and
expansion to those around you.
Management
Management-level is more operational in nature. ese eorts de-
pict activities normally accomplished by senior NCOs or crasmen:
PERFORMANCE LEVELS │ 33
• Job performance includes leading multiple teams, multiple pro-
grams, and/or large populations and organizing, directing, plan-
ning, and controlling large-scale projects.
• Self-improvement eorts describe signicant educational and
training milestones, long in-residence or correspondence
courses, career development course completion with outstand-
ing grades and distinction, and completion of undergraduate
degrees.
• Base and community involvement includes leading multiple
teams, multiple programs, and/or large populations and orga-
nizing, directing, planning, and controlling large-scale projects.
• Mentoring at the management level depicts activities with inu-
ence over large groups of Airmen inside and outside the organi-
zation and signicant involvement in professional development.
Leadership
Leadership-level performance depicts strategic involvement. ese
are functions expected from a leader. Remember, anyone has the
potential to perform at the leadership level:
• Job performance verbiage includes organizing, directing, plan-
ning, and supervising large programs and/or vast populations
and assuming responsibility over major operations.
• Self-improvement describes higher-level educational achieve-
ments and/or signicant in-residence courses and completion
of graduate degrees.
• Base and community involvement includes organizing, direct-
ing, planning, and supervising large base and community pro-
grams, overseeing vast operations, and assuming responsibility
over vast populations.
• Mentoring in this category demonstrates inuence over hun-
dreds of Airmen throughout the base and involvement organiz-
ing professional development panels and seminars. ese leaders
oer comments at graduations and other professional develop-
ment venues.
34 │ JAREN
Context
While anyone can demonstrate leadership, a certain level of per-
formance is expected based on your rank or position. erefore,
you should be performing at a level commensurate with or above
your position.
Oen the context of a word matters more than the word itself. For
example, look at the word leader in this bullet: “Leader! Washed cars
for the booster club.” is is u and should hold no value. e word
is inappropriately used to inuence the reader. Aer all, the individ-
ual only washed cars, which is membership level at best.
Conversely, a member of the USAF Uniform Board should carry
great value. Not many people will ever have the opportunity to par-
ticipate on the USAF Uniform Board, where they can aect Air
Force-wide change.
Bottom line: Do not get caught in a trap placing a stigma on the
denition of a word—look for context.
Apply Performance Levels to Bullets
Chapter 4 evaluated how bullets can be constructed in standard,
reverse, and inverted formats. Bullets were also divided into pieces,
giving insight into the writer’s communication style. As an evaluator,
you need to assign the appropriate level to each specic bullet com-
ponent. If the performance is strong, assign a higher performance
level. If the component is weak or ambiguous, assign a lower perfor-
mance level or call it u.
Consider the following example: “Hard-charging attitude and
dedication directly contributed to the unit winning the Air Force
Verne Orr Award.” e result seems to be leadership-level since the
award was won at the Air Force level. However, “hard-charging atti-
tude and dedication” are vague words and add no value. is u
limits credibility and hinders any bullet potential.
Upper and Lower resholds
One technique to assist in assigning a performance level is to nd
upper and lower thresholds for a particular accomplishment. For ex-
ample, an individual who instructed leadership principles to 25 stu-
dents during a one-day course might be considered leadership level.
Leadership is demonstrated at any rank and is performed at the tacti-
PERFORMANCE LEVELS │ 35
cal, operational, and strategic levels. However, rst consider the real-
istic and achievable possibilities for mentoring.
In trying to estimate what level of performance to assign, imagine
what other mentors are accomplishing. What about the individuals
who organized the following:
• Taught two subordinates how to write performance reports;
• Instructed 25 students on leadership principles during a one-
day course;
• Organized weeklong senior noncommissioned ocer profes-
sional development seminar for 50 in conjunction with a ban-
quet dinner;
• Taught two professional enhancement (PE) seminars, three Air-
men Leadership Schools (ALS), three First-Term Airmen Cen-
ter (FTAC), and organized a tour for the Reserve Ocer Train-
ing Corps (ROTC), shaping 350 future leaders.
By establishing realistic upper and lower thresholds you can com-
pare and contrast an appropriate level of performance. In this case,
what could have been perceived as leadership-level mentoring in the
rst two bullets falls short when compared to organizing a senior
NCO professional development seminar and completely pales by
comparison to the person involved in the yearlong shaping of 350
future leaders. Now the original accomplishment appears more like it
corresponds to supervisory level—“oversight or supervision of a
small group, small team, small program.” e others should appear
more like membership, management, and leadership level, respec-
tively.
e reason to mention these thresholds stems from evaluators
who profess to grade on a curve. Some purport a junior Airman or-
ganizing a car wash demonstrates leadership and thus award credit at
the leadership level. Doing this only serves to diminish the contribu-
tions of other Airmen performing at a higher level. What about the
president of the Airman’s Council who leads a yearlong committee,
conducts monthly meetings, and meets with base leadership regu-
larly? at is leadership level. Organizing a car wash is supervisory
level (oversight of a small group), and in my opinion, such eort
should not be graded on a curve. As you can see, applying proper
context helps you to identify the performance for what it is and be
condent in your choice.
36 │ JAREN
Two-Levels Concept
ere will never be a perfect system to score bullets, because you
cannot apply a checklist system to people’s values, backgrounds, ex-
perience, or interpretation of the intended message. However, you
can apply the two-levels concept. When evaluating a bullet select
“two” adjacent performance levels with the condence you have the
right choice between the two levels. For example, if a person per-
formed a certain accomplishment resulting in a $2,000,000 savings,
that should be considered a leadership-level result.
By applying the two-levels concept, practically every person should
agree that a $2,000,000 result is either a leadership or a management
level. at’s a lot of money! It should be unusual to believe a $2,000,000
result would be membership level. Every evaluator should be within
one level of each other by applying the two-levels concept.
e two-levels concept validates how two board members should
not be o by more than one level. For example, if one board member
thought the accomplishment is membership, it should be dicult for
another to perceive it as leadership. Any two board members usually
fall within one level of each other. If someone falls outside one level
repeatedly, they are oen inexperienced, occasionally parochial, or
may have a unique perspective falling outside the norm. I say the last
part to give exibility for unique and diverse thoughts, but in all hon-
esty, in 14 years of using this process, everyone who fell outside the
two levels was one of the rst two reasons.
In addition, if you nd yourself having diculties deciding on a
specic level, try using the two-levels concept. Selecting two levels
will help you nd the range. Once you are in the range, try to deter-
mine what your next choice would be. Is it one up or one down from
your two levels? For example, if you selected management and super-
visory for the two levels, does the accomplishment seem more like
leadership or membership? If your next choice was membership,
then your specic performance level is probably supervisory. e
two-levels concept helps you pinpoint performance levels.
Summary
By now, you should be able to dierentiate levels of performance.
Also, you should be able to distinguish dierent bullet formats and
recognize strengths and weaknesses in bullet components. In all jobs,
PERFORMANCE LEVELS │ 37
some people “help” and some “lead.” Leadership can happen at any
level, and consideration must be given to the person’s rank and posi-
tion to understand which accomplishments are meaningful and wor-
thy of documenting and which ones are not.
Chapter 6
e Performance Scale
If it’s free, it’s advice; if you pay for it, it’s counseling; if you can
use either one, it’s a miracle.
—Jack Adams, coach and general manager, Detroit Red Wings
e magic is a three-step process. First, assess the bullet format.
Next, assign a performance level to each part of the bullet. Finally,
determine the overall level of the accomplishment.
Remember how to apply the two levels concept. By understanding
this concept, everyone should be within one level of each other.
Accommodate imperfection by considering the two levels concept;
board members should conclude within one level of each other.
Challenge: If the examples seemed dicult, practice by consider-
ing the scores of an experienced evaluator on an award package.
is short chapter brings all the pieces together. e magic is not a
miracle, it is a process—a process to save time and make writing eas-
ier and stronger. Learning how to assess bullet formats and perfor-
mance levels is the foundation for this process. is chapter creates
the magic by combining key lessons learned in previous chapters and
establishing an overall performance level. Now it is time for the magic.
Performance Scale
Chapter 4 showed how to break apart and assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the bullet format. Chapter 5 assigned performance lev-
els to each part of the bullet. Chapter 6 combines the rst two steps to
determine the overall level of the accomplishment through the use of
the Performance Scale.
Over the years, I have used a variety of scales and graphs to illus-
trate performance levels. is process has evolved considerably and
you will be glad to see how the performance scale brings it all to-
gether. e Performance Scale arranges the components and illus-
trates the strengths and weaknesses within the bullet.
40 │ JAREN
As you read a bullet, start by identifying the construction and for-
mat and then assess the performance levels in each element. Based on
the overall assessment of the bullet, assign and write that performance
level in the right-hand column. It seems simple; that is the magic.
Use the scale to visualize each component with the corresponding
level of performance inside the chart.
Performance Scale Example
—Negotiated MOA; raised aircra ramp space 25%—facilitated
beddown of aircra
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management Negotiated MOA — —
Supervisory — raised aircraft ramp space 25% facilitated beddown...
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
In the preceding example, the action is the strongest part at man-
agement level, the impact is supervisory, and the result is supervisory.
For the purposes of this book we will use this chart. Aerwards, you
will automatically visualize bullet components to see the strengths
and weaknesses as if they were placed in the chart.
Practice
As you review the following examples think about what perfor-
mance levels you would assign. en read the rationale. Remember
to consider upper and lower thresholds. Are we close?
Example 1
Standard Bullet Format
—Changed aircra tire; completed in 1 hour—aircra mission
capable
THE PERFORMANCE SCALE │ 41
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership Changed aircraft tire completed in 1 hour aircraft mission...
Fluff — — —
Example 1 reects all of the components at the membership level.
A crew chief changed an aircra tire. e job was completed within
the standard, and the aircra was returned to serviceable status. is
is a basic task for a crew chief, and the performance scale portrays the
accomplishment at membership level.
Example 2
Standard Bullet Format
—Rewrote technical data; corrected assembly errors—averted
minor wear
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory Rewrote technical data; corrected assembly errors
Membership — — averted minor wear
Fluff — — —
Example 2 graphically illustrates how some elements in the bullet
are at dierent performance levels. e result oers no tangible infor-
mation. If I had to select a level other than membership for the result,
it would be u. is system is not a perfect science; however, your
evaluation of the components in this accomplishment should be
within one level as shown.
42 │ JAREN
Example 3
Reverse Bullet Format
—Avoided $20M damage! Rewrote technical data to avoid
catastrophic damage
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership Avoided $20M damage! —
Management — —
Supervisory — Rewrote technical data to avoid catastrophic errors
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Example 3 uses the reverse format to position the $20 million
damage to the front of the bullet and emphasize the signicance.
Most readers would probably agree that “Avoided $20M damage” is at
the leadership or management level. Rewriting technical data is su-
pervisory, and the end of the bullet is ambiguous, leaving it scored
membership. It possibly should be u.
Example 4
Inverted Bullet Format
—Corrected eet-wide issue! Rewrote technical data to prevent
minor wear
Impact Action Result
Leadership — — —
Management Corrected flee-wide... — —
Supervisory — Rewrote technical data —
Membership — — to prevent minor wear
Fluff — — —
Example 4 uses the inverted format to move the eet-wide impact
to the front. Avoiding minor wear was not signicant; rewriting tech-
nical data is not the strongest part of the bullet. e performance
THE PERFORMANCE SCALE │ 43
scale illustrates how this bullet started strong, but fell o at the end.
is would be better than starting weak.
So far, the examples are relatively straightforward, which is not
what one should expect when scoring awards. Moreover, we oen
score awards outside our eld of expertise. is can be tough unless
the action, impact, and results are clear. e next four examples in-
clude ambiguous writing to make you break down the bullet and
eliminate ambiguity to nd value. Hours are spent rewriting bullets
that look just like these.
Example 5
Reverse Bullet Format
—Won AF Safety plaque! Led eort resulting in zero unit safety
issues
Result Action Impact
Leadership Won AF Safety plaque! — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — resulting in zero unit safety issues
Fluff — Led effort —
e writer used a reverse format to emphasize an Air Force-level
award. Sadly, this bullet falls into a writing trap as it does not describe
anything tangible performed by the individual. Writing traps will be
examined later on in chapter 8. e lack of tangible action results in
overall little or no value. e performance scale makes the ambigu-
ous contribution readily apparent.
Example 6
Standard Bullet Format
—Seless leader! Co-led fundraiser to raise money for unit
holiday party
44 │ JAREN
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — Co-led fundraiser to raise money for unit holiday party
Fluff Selfless leader! — —
Example 6 is lled with ambiguity. e beginning is u, and lead-
ing a small fundraiser should be at the supervisory level. Unfortu-
nately, the writer does not say what the person did. Summing up the
three components, it is u-membership-u. With added informa-
tion the bullet could be valued overall at the supervisory level. As
presented, I would probably award overall membership or u. Make
sense? e performance scale clearly exposes this bullet as a mem-
bership level contribution at best.
An old adage exemplies this situation. If a tree fell in the
forest and no one was there to see it, did it really happen? If the
bullet does not say what they did, do not give credit for it. It did
not really happen.
Example 7
Standard Bullet Format
—Managed ight CFC [Combined Federal Campaign] drive;
installation surpassed FY11 goal raising $1.1M
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — installation surpassed FY11 goal raising $1.1M
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership Managed flight CFC drive —
Fluff — —
THE PERFORMANCE SCALE │ 45
e bullet in example 7 claims ight management of the eort but
oers no scope, impact, or contribution details. e beginning of the
bullet becomes a management-level job description that is not
backed up with action. is could have been a good bullet if it de-
scribed management-level information such as the population in the
ight, the percent of people contacted, and dollar value raised. Ap-
plying the TOS concept, this bullet jumps from tactical to strategic
without connection.
Example 8
Standard Bullet Format
—Astute scal manager; maintained perfect records—oce aced
IG inspection
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — office aced IG inspection
Supervisory — — —
Membership — maintained perfect records —
Fluff Astute fiscal manager — —
Example 8 is another example of ambiguous language. e prob-
lem is the action and impact. What were the astute actions? Why
were the records awless? Did they initiate a new process or does the
computer system automatically maintain awless records and there
was no action? e writer should cite clearly what the person did to
distinguish between those who “walk the walk” from those who only
“talk the talk.”
Another rule of thumb in describing u is where the writer states the indi-
vidual is “all that” but doesn’t back it up in the bullet. Simply saying someone
is good doesn’t make it so. Instead, avoid the u and simply talk to the per-
formance (and do so convincingly) so the reader is able to draw that conclu-
sion without using the words “all that.” Following this strategy empowers you
with a powerful performance-based writing technique which is the essence of
persuasion. Do not just “tell me” they are an astute scal manager, “Show me!”
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
46 │ JAREN
For example, if each component (action, impact, and result) is
membership value (membership-membership-membership), it is
easy to see how the entire bullet is scored membership level. e
same is true if each component is assigned supervisory value
(supervisory- supervisory-supervisory). e entire bullet would be
scored supervisory level. It gets trickier when components have vary-
ing performance levels (membership-leadership-supervisory). Iden-
tify the components, assign a performance level, and then determine
the overall bullet value.
A good technique to assess performance is to underline the words
that stand out particularly strong and circle the words that are am-
biguous, unclear, or weak. en make notes in the right-hand margin.
Practice
e following three examples are designed to practice assessing
bullets. Evaluate the statement and assign one performance level to
each component. Using a pencil write the bullet components adja-
cent to the corresponding performance level. en, turn the page and
compare your assessment. Also, remember the two levels concept.
Your estimation does not have to match perfectly, but see if it is within
one level.
Example 1 (Practice)
—Replaced worn tires; completed task in one hour—vehicle
returned to service
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: Remember, a scoring process is not a perfect science. A
checklist is not available for assessing bullets because individual val-
ues and experiences dier from person to person and aect evalua-
tions when making assessments.
THE PERFORMANCE SCALE │ 47
Example 1 (Author’s)
—Replaced worn tires; completed task in one hour—vehicle
returned to service
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership Replaced worn tires; completed in one hour—vehicle returned...
Fluff — — —
Membership level best describes this accomplishment. A mainte-
nance person replaced worn tires on a vehicle. Completing the task in
one hour and returning the vehicle to service are direct outcomes
from the tire change. ough the task was completed in one hour, it
still represents a basic task that “members” do—nothing more and
nothing less. What if the task were completed in one-half the job
standard? Can you see how that might aect your assessment?
Author’s Tip: Typically, board members do not have perfectly match-
ing scores. However, it is unusual for one person to believe an action
is membership level while another person considers it leadership.
Example 2 (Practice)
—Replaced aircra tire on Redball—quick repair allowed suc-
cessful exercise
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: “Redball” is common in aircra maintenance. It signi-
es a problem in the nal moments before taxi. Typically, the aircra
has engines running. is creates intensity for repair actions.
48 │ JAREN
Example 2 (Author’s)
—Replaced aircra tire on Redball—quick repair allowed suc-
cessful exercise
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory Replaced tire on Redball—quick repair allowed successful...
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Although the crew chief only changed a tire, the intensity of the
Redball increased the signicance of the accomplishment. Also, the
aircra actually launched and participated in an exercise aer main-
tenance.
Author’s Tip: is bullet describes competencies expected of skilled
workers, a level expected from a crasman.
Also, though “Redball” is now explained, this term can be ambiguous
for nonaircra maintenance board members. Consider the audience
when writing the bullet.
Example 3 (Practice)
—Replaced aircra tire on Redball; last jet for CAS [close air
support]—2 bombs hit targets
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: e intensity and situation continue to add value.
Imagine trying to repair the last jet available to ensure our war ght-
ers have close air support.
THE PERFORMANCE SCALE │ 49
Example 3 (Author’s)
—Replaced aircra tire on Redball; last jet for CAS—2 bombs hit
targets
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — 2 bombs hit targets
Management — last jet for CAS —
Supervisory Replaced aircraft tire on Redball —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Management level best describes this accomplishment. Applying
the two-level rule, most readers will score the accomplishment as
management or leadership due to the intensity and signicance of the
result.
Author’s Tip: Interestingly in the three examples, the only thing ac-
complished by the worker is a tire change. is example makes it ob-
vious that pertinent details, such as the last jet, last-minute tire
change, and enabling the jet to strike targets are essential ingredients.
With a clear scenario description, the overall value of the contribu-
tion changes signicantly.
Summary
So how did you do? Were you within one level? e three step
process to assess every bullet with a performance level is essential to
applying the magic. If you’re still a little rusty, the following chapters
and online practice at http://www.brownbaglessons.com/ will con-
tinue to build skills by practicing the line-by-line scoring system. In
addition, readers will discover important writing traps to avoid.
Board members are charged to evaluate the individual’s contribu-
tions against the competencies in the recognition criteria. Aer read-
ing this chapter you should have a solid technique to guide you in
evaluating bullets. Whether writing for the board or evaluating pack-
ages on the board, composing input to submit for consideration in
your annual appraisal or your résumé, your results will be credible
and defendable.
Part 3
Practice Makes Perfect
In theory, there is no dierence between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
—Yogi Berra, baseball professional
Practice makes perfect. Or does it? If someone writes bullets for 20
years, should not that person be a perfect bullet writer? Experience
shows this is certainly not the case. So what kind of practice makes
perfect?
Part 3 gets back to the basics. When a professional sports team strug-
gles, the coach drills the team on basic mechanics. Coach John
Wooden was the head coach of the University of California–Los An-
geles (UCLA) men’s basketball team from 1964 to 1975. e team
won 10 national titles under his leadership. Coach Wooden used a
famous lesson on shoes and socks to explain the importance of get-
ting back to the basics. He taught his players to properly wear and tie
footgear to prevent blisters that might take them out of the game.
Basics are usually enough to get performance back on track.
Aer “creating” the magic, chapter 7 hones the basics with a practice
of scoring mechanics. An advanced coaching technique involves
practicing specic activities to remove aws engrained from years of
bad habits. is chapter accomplishes this by identifying common
writing traps to avoid.
Finally, there are peak performance team practice examples that
show how the excellent mechanics become a natural reex. e fol-
lowing exercise will build this adaptive response by providing ex-
amples to practice and compare your results to the author’s ratio-
nale. Let’s practice!
Chapter 7
Scoring Mechanics
Do not measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but
what you should have accomplished with your ability.
—John Wooden, collegiate basketball coach
Practice doesn’t make perfect, “perfect practice makes perfect.”
Line-by-line scoring is essential to remove bias and this method
ensures that it is an objective, fair, and consistent process.
Read a bullet from le to right. Underline the elements you nd
particularly strong and circle the elements that you nd ambigu-
ous, unclear, or weak. Read, underline, circle, then score in the
right margin.
e bottom line—work the scoring mechanics. Let the process
work, let the process be fair, and let objectivity be your compass.
By this point, the reader has an understanding of formats, perfor-
mance levels, and creating the magic. Now it is time to practice the
process.
K. Anders Ericsson, a psychologist and professor at Florida State
University, pioneered research in deliberate practice and what delib-
erate practice means. One of Ericsson’s core ndings is that how ex-
pertly a skill is performed has more to do with how the practitioner
practices rather than with the repetition of that skill.
1
A typical coach-
ing technique is to break down the skills that are required to improve
an athlete’s performance and focus on specic aspects during practice
or day-to-day activities.
is is why the method (the how) of practicing scoring mechanics
develops your evaluation ability. is chapter contains a practice page
and the author’s corresponding appraisal to compare your eorts.
First let’s set up the practice.
Tenets of Scoring Mechanics
• Score one line at a time without regard to other lines
• Start by reading the bullet from le to right
54 │ JAREN
• Identify components: accomplishment-impact, action-impact-
result
• Underline components you nd particularly strong
• Circle components you nd ambiguous, unclear, or weak
• Consider performance levels that best describe the components
• At the end of the bullet, consider the performance level that best
characterizes the overall accomplishment
• Place a score from zero to two points (see table 1) in the right
margin that corresponds to the overall level of performance
• Score every single bullet until all have a score in the right margin
Table 1. Performance-level scores
Leadership 2 points
Management 1 1/2 points
Supervisory 1 point
Membership 1/2 point
Fluff
0 point
Author’s Tip: Remember at least one component in each bullet must
include action. Without action, you cannot conrm the individual
was even present. Ambiguous action will negatively impact the over-
all value much more than an ambiguous result.
Scoring awards is not supposed to be subjective, nor about the per-
son you like. It is also not about the personal “experience” of a sea-
soned leader making judgments. It’s about being objective, fair, and
consistent.
Line-by-Line Scoring Is a Powerful Tool
e truth is every board member has bias, preference, values, and
personal views that can interfere in the scoring process. Everyone has
these subconscious inuences, but a line-by-line evaluation helps to
overcome personal bias. Let me share one of my own examples:
SCORING MECHANICS │ 55
On one occasion while preparing to score packages, I recognized one of the
candidates had just returned from a deployment (let’s call this package A).
at deployment was lled with incredible adventure and opportunity. In the
back of my mind, something told me this person would come out on top.
During the scoring process, several of his accomplishments jumped out at me.
Following the techniques in this book, I underlined the strong accomplish-
ments, circled the weak, and scored in the margin.
Using this system, you can understand the diculty of demonstrating leader-
ship-level performance on every line. e level of these accomplishments is
enduring, signicant, and not easy to achieve. Package A had a few 2s denot-
ing leadership-level contributions as well as a number of management- and
supervisory-level accomplishments. en I scored the remaining packages.
When nished, I tallied up the scores. I can’t remember the actual point value;
let’s say package A scored 40 points. Forty points is a good score using this
system for a package with 30 lines. My intuition led me to believe that that
package would end up winning.
However, aer tallying the scores, it surprised me to learn that package B
scored 43 points which resulted in my number one recommendation. In the
back of my mind, that just did not add up. How could my intuition be wrong?
I reviewed the scores on both packages line-by-line to double-check strengths
and weaknesses and came up with same result. en the clue light came on.
rough objective line-by-line scoring, the record of accomplishment clearly
showed package B to be the stronger package. If I had allowed my bias to inu-
ence scoring, package A would have incorrectly been selected as the winner.
I stand by the benets of a consistent approach because this pro-
cess leads to a fair outcome, certainly a fairer outcome than a per-
sonal preference method. Combining the magic with line-by-line
scoring and proper scoring mechanics compensates for internal bias
and recognizes the merit of individual accomplishments. What an
incredible discovery!
Practice
Example 1 represents a typical awards package. Your task is to
score each bullet. Begin by scanning each line le to right assessing
the various components (action, impact, and result). While reading,
underline the parts you consider strengths and circle the parts you
consider weaknesses. en consider your performance level assess-
ment for each component and write the score (between zero and two
points) that best summarizes the overall level of the accomplishment
in the right margin. Be mindful these bullets are shortened to t the
56 │ JAREN
width of the page. When you are nished, compare your assessment
to that provided by the author in example 2.
You will achieve the best benet by scoring the example package
before comparing it against the author. Now let’s begin.
Example 1
Leadership and Job Performance in Primary Duties
Leader! Updated fitness tracker—current stats 100% compliant __ pts.
Led inspection review; validated 13 checklists/350 items—passed UCI __ pts.
Dedication helped the unit win the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award __ pts.
Revised training; saved 15 hours/person—affected 10K employees __ pts.
ORM practices instrumental to unit’s nom of CSAF Ground Safety Award __ pts.
Self-Improvement
Completed 16 credits toward bachelor’s degree—maintained 3.6 GPA __ pts.
Hard Charger! Completed 12 CBTs—100% compliant with mobility trng __ pts.
Base and Community Involvement
Facilitated 5-day seminar; guided 24 speakers—developed 63 SNCOs __ pts.
Mentor! Taught 3 schools, 2 seminars, 5 courses—shaped 399 juniors __ pts.
Built Professional Development program; elevated employee abilities __ pts.
Now compare your results to Example 2 which has been lled in
with the author’s appraisal. Did the components you underlined and
circled correspond? Remember the two levels concept; did the score
you placed in the right-hand margin come within one level of the
scores provided by the author?
SCORING MECHANICS │ 57
Example 2
Leadership and Job Performance in Primary Duties
Leader! Updated fitness tracker—current stats 100% compliant 0.5 pts.
Led inspection review; validated 13 checklists/350 items—passed UCI
1.0 pts.
Dedication helped the unit win the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award
0.5 pts.
Revised training; saved 15 hours/person—affected 10K employees
1.5 pts.
ORM practices instrumental to unit’s nom of CSAF Ground Safety Award
0.5 pts.
Self-Improvement
Completed 16 credits toward bachelor’s degree—maintained 3.6 GPA 1.0 pts.
Hard Charger! Completed 12 CBTs—100% compliant with mobility trng
0.5 pts.
Base and Community Involvement
Facilitated 5-day seminar; guided 24 speakers—developed 63 SNCOs 1.5 pts.
Mentor! Taught 3 schools, 2 seminars, 5 courses—shaped 399 juniors
2.0 pts.
Built Professional Development program; elevated employee abilities
0.5 pts.
A Final Look
A good technique before you nish scoring is to review packages
side-by-side to spot discrepancies. Maybe you scored earning an as-
sociate’s degree 1.5 points in one package, but 1.0 point in another.
is added step ensures fairness and consistency among packages.
e Human Factor
ough line-by-line scoring minimizes bias, the “human factor”
cannot be ignored. One cannot ignore the dynamic that it is impos-
sible for complete objectivity from thoughts, feelings, and emotions.
ey are, in fact, part of the scoring process. You must be mindful of
this. Chief James Martin explains:
An evaluator proceeded to use the scoring method discussed. When nished,
the winning package scored 9.5 and the second scored 9.0. If you have experi-
58 │ JAREN
ence scoring packages you know it is common for the dierence between win-
ners and second place to be a mere half-point.
Hypothetically, it’s safe to conclude a package scoring 9.5 points out of a pos-
sible 10 is very strong. But the same argument can be made for the 9.0 pack-
age. Aer all, it’s only a half-point away from rst place. Asking the evaluator,
“how did you score the dierence,” you will come to the conclusion I did many
years ago. ough both packages are good, one package impressed the board
member more. Whether it’s the entire package or one or two bullets, it was the
persuasive factor that made the dierence. I call it the “wow” factor. You must
account for that and incorporate this into your writing. It’s an important dy-
namic you can’t overlook. Use this as you create the magic.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Formula for Success
In my bullet-writing presentation, I present an emerging thought
on the bullet value and the formula for success. e action establishes
the “potential value” of the bullet, then the result component “quali-
es” the accomplishment. You must have both, but in my opinion, a
bullet starting at the membership level limits the potential of the bul-
let. However, if the action component is the leadership level, the po-
tential of the bullet will continue to increase commensurate with the
level of the result component.
Summary
A person can write for years and never improve. en along comes
a mentor, a coach, or an approach that radically improves the writer’s
product immediately. Apply this chapter’s scoring process and the
magic takes root and comes alive in your writing. Now you are better
able to detect the strengths and weaknesses of your and others’ writ-
ing. By applying these techniques, you will be leaps and bounds ahead
of others.
e bottom line is to work the process, then let the process work.
Minimize bias, and let objectivity be your compass. When you do, the
process will be fair, consistent, and objective.
Chapter 8
Top 10 Writing Traps
ere are three types of lies—lies, damn lies, and statistics.
—Mark Twain
Be sure you can recognize the various writing traps:
1. Making promises
2. Faulty lead-in
3. Led eort
4. Job title
5. Death bullet
6. Lazy writing
7. Too many acronyms
8. Bridge too far
9. Know your audience
10. Who’s your audience
Author’s Tip: You should not expect to nd perfect packages when
scoring awards. However, don’t disregard an entire bullet just because
you recognize a portion contains u. ere may be enough informa-
tion remaining to nd some value.
Continuing with the notion that perfect practice makes perfect,
whatever sport one plays, bad habits will follow throughout life un-
less you identify and correct those habits by practicing proper form
or technique. is chapter presents 10 examples of the most-common
writing traps. Every example is designed to help identify the aws
that detract from performance appraisals, recognition packages, ré-
sumés, and other professional reports.
Unfortunately, the wool has been pulled over our eyes through re-
petitive bad habits. Learn these common writing traps and your eyes
will be opened to the prevalent aws found across the spectrum.
is chapter presents essential tips to improve your abilities. As
you read the examples continue to look for format, performance lev-
els, and value. e aws will become apparent as the performance
scale amplies the strengths and weaknesses.
60 │ JAREN
Example 1: e “making promises” trap
—Studying for College Math CLEP exam; expect six credits
towards associate’s degree
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff Studying for College Math CLEP exam; expect six credits towards...
Zero points—u; u–u. is bullet attempts to take credit for
something that has not happened.
Author’s Tip: How can you conrm an individual is truly studying
for a CLEP? It’s not a college class which requires enrollment. is
bullet is promising on something yet to occur. Avoid the making
promises trap.
Example 2: e “faulty lead-in” trap
—Hard Charger!Completed 12 CBTs—100% current with
mobility training
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — Completed 12 CBTs —100% current with mobility training
Fluff Hard Charger! — —
1/2 point–u; membership–membership. Using the lead-in “hard
charger” is an ambiguous beginning. In this case, the rst words start
the bullet in a hole. Unfortunately, completion of mandatory CBT
requirements are, at best, membership level. Applying the two levels
concept, if this is not a membership, most would score as u.
TOP 10 WRITING TRAPS │ 61
Author’s Tip: When using a lead-in, make it count. Consider the
lead-in “base-wide mentor” or “base leader” if warranted. Both pur-
port leadership. If supported by the ensuing words these are an eec-
tive start. Avoid the faulty lead-in trap.
Example 3: e “led eort” trap
—Led eort culminating in organization winning Air Force
Verne Orr Award
Action Impact Result
Leadership — winning Air Force Verne Orr Award
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff Led effort culminating in organization —
1/2 point–u; u–leadership. Winning the Air Force Verne Orr
Award should be considered a leadership-level result. Unfortunately,
in this example there is no way to know what the individual actually
did, how they led, or the impact of their eorts. is example violates
the TOS concept taught in chapter 4. Remember, action needs to be
clearly explained to be eective.
Author’s Tip: e words “led eort” are ambiguous. Accomplish-
ments need to be supported with concrete descriptions of the perfor-
mance. is is a common writing aw. Avoid the led eort trap.
Example 4: e “job title” trap
—Top 3 president; remarkable leadership that inspires esprit de
corps
Action Impact Result
Leadership Top 3 president — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — remarkable leadership that inspires esprit de corps
62 │ JAREN
0 points–leadership; u–u. is example shows exactly how not
to document additional duties or other elected positions. Starting a
bullet with a job title is used to qualify the action, impact, and results
that may normally be outside normal duties. But the ensuing words
must be provided so that appropriate value can be assigned.
Author’s Tip: e words “Top 3 president,” in this example, are a
mini-job title. Without comments describing specic action and im-
pact, how can we assess the performance? is would be like reading
a performance appraisal with a job title but no statements to describe
performance. Avoid the job title trap.
Example 5: e “death bullet” trap
—Persistence impacted “outstanding” grade during compliance
inspection
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — “outstanding” grade during compliance inspection
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff Persistence impacted —
1/2 point–u; leadership. is is similar to the led eort trap. e
outstanding grade on the inspection denotes a leadership-level result,
but the action and impact are vague. us, the assessment should be
scored low or as u. e individual was there, but we do not know
what he/she actually did. I call this the death bullet trap because it is
prominent on performance reports and award nomination packages.
Author’s Tip: Many appraisals cite stellar inspections and heralded
actions. Sadly, writers are caught in the halo eect and forget to con-
nect the dots. e TOS concept illustrates how this bullet skips from
tactical to strategic level. Tie the action to the result. Avoid the death
bullet trap.
TOP 10 WRITING TRAPS │ 63
Example 6: e “lazy writing” trap
—LEAN-minded; process-mapped support section—tool issue
more ecient
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — process-mapped support section —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — tool issue more efficient
Fluff LEAN-minded — —
1/2 point–u; management–membership. LEAN is a process im-
provement concept that focuses on eliminating unnecessary steps in
a project. e result “more ecient” reects lazy writing. Rather, con-
vey how the process reduced time, minimized events per shi, or
possibly yielded broader results.
Author’s Tip: Vague endings actually diminish other components in
the bullet that add value. Endings such as more ecient, sped pro-
cess, reduced costs, and improved communication are meaningless
and provide no value. If you can just pull a result from thin air with-
out research it likely falls in this category. Do your homework. Avoid
the lazy writing trap.
Example 7: e “too many acronyms” trap
—C5B SME; t/s elusive slat W/U; R2d #7B act <2 hrs—O/T real
world msn
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff C5B SME; t/s elusive slat W/U; R2d #7B act <2 hrs — O/T real world msn
64 │ JAREN
0.0 point–u; u–u. is bullet says, C5B (aircra) subject mat-
ter expert; troubleshot elusive slat write up; remove and replaced #7B
actuator in less than two hours. is allowed an on-time, real-word
mission. One surere way to limit the potential of an accomplish-
ment is using too many acronyms.
Author’s Tip: A good rule of thumb is to limit one or two acronyms
per line. When acronyms become a distraction, or when the reader is
forced to refer to an acronym list or research abbreviations on the
Internet, these do not lead to positive outcomes. Avoid the too many
acronyms trap.
Example 8: e “bridge-too-far” trap
—Replaced rivets on cargo door; $2B eet serviceable—C5s
delivered supplies
Action Impact Result
Leadership — $2B fleet serviceable—C5s delivered supplies
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership Replaced rivets on cargo door —
Fluff — — —
1/2 point–membership; leadership–leadership. is example was de-
scribed in chapter 4, which explained the TOS concept. e action
does not connect well to the strategic-level results. Stretching action
from one event to an entire eet of aircra is a bridge too far.
Author’s Tip: Some writers embellish results. When this occurs, the
embellished bullet—and possibly the entire package—may become
suspect. Avoid the bridge-too-far trap.
TOP 10 WRITING TRAPS │ 65
Example 9: e “know your audience” trap
—Awarded LVN license! Passed requisite training and examina-
tions within allotted time
Result Action Impact
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory Awarded LVN License! —
Membership — Passed requisite training and examinations within allotted...
Fluff — — —
1 point–supervisory; membership–membership. Know your audience
means do not omit critical information. Most readers are unaware
that licensed vocational nurse (LVN) certication is a two-year pro-
gram that includes completion of oral, written and practical board
examinations. ose in the medical eld may know the requirements,
but you should include pertinent details for an external audience.
Sharing these additional facts will increase the value to board mem-
bers. We described the need to include completion of “oral, written
and practical board Examinations” which are more than one fact. e
point here is, if you do not know your audience, spell out the details
so everyone understands the scope of what they are reading.
Author’s Tip: e trap here is the omission of critical information.
Adding evidence to dene the scope is benecial to the reader when it
increases value. Avoid the know-your-audience trap.
Example 10: e “who’s your audience” trap
—Completed nal requirements for Org Behav bach deg with
3.87 GPA
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — for Org Behav bach deg —
Supervisory — — with 3.87 GPA
Membership Completed final requirements —
Fluff — — —
66 │ JAREN
1/2 point–membership; management–supervisory. Board members
typically spend less than two minutes on selection folders. Similarly,
human resource recruiters spend less than 15 seconds scouring re-
sumes. In this example, the bell curve illustrates the most valuable
component of the bullet. As you can see, the most important words
(at the height of the bell curve) have been diminished to lowercase
abbreviated words “bach deg.” e bullet almost reads as though the
individual completed a class versus a degree. How about starting the
bullet “Awarded Bachelors!” You had me at hello.
Author’s Tip: You do not want to force time-constrained readers to
hunt through your records to unearth your competencies and capa-
bilities. Reorganize your accomplishments so the reviewer can fully
and easily assess your performance and potential. Avoid the who’s-
your-audience trap.
Aer reading this chapter you have the ability to recognize and avoid
the 10 writing traps. As read by other board members, packages writ-
ten by you will be recognized as straightforward, trustworthy, and
professional.
Chapter 9
Perfect Practice Makes Perfect
Hard work oen leads to success. No work seldom does.
—Harvey Mackay, businessman and writer
Remember to separate the facts from ction and understand how
to value portions of the bullet when elements are ambiguous. It
gets trickier when the components in a bullet have varying perfor-
mance levels.
e categories in an award’s package are not simply things to do;
they should reect the competencies commensurate with your
grade, or higher. e same goes for performance reports, résumés,
and any competency-based system.
Challenge: Participate as an awards board member and learn to
apply the fundamentals of scoring!
is chapter is designed for purposeful practice. With the magic at
hand, it’s time to organize bullets into categories with insights and
experience.
Experienced evaluators oen see a common stumbling block
among writers. is impediment deals with capturing the “what” in
proper context. In this chapter, a series of practical exercises helps us
avoid these contextual blunders.
Categories in awards packages and performance reports should
reect the competencies commensurate with your grade, or higher.
e accomplishments that describe leading and developing people
as well as managing systems and resources are captured in the top
packages.
ree basic categories of accomplishments are found in most rec-
ognition packages: leadership and job performance in primary duty,
signicant self-improvement, and base and community involvement.
While the specic details may change over time, a strong package will
have mentoring bullets threaded throughout. Mentoring (internal
and external) can be exemplied in any category. Now let’s look at the
categories with Chief Martin’s observations.
68 │ JAREN
Leadership and Job Performance
in Primary Duty
is important category describes contributions toward the pri-
mary mission. at is why award packages require more examples in
this category. ese accomplishments describe how well the members
performed their assigned primary and additional duties. is cate-
gory includes illustrating the scope and level of responsibilities and
the contribution to the mission and unit. Be sure to cite new initia-
tives or techniques developed by the member that positively aected
the mission. Include contributions that resulted in Air Force-, major
command-, and numbered Air Force-level inspections and/or evalu-
ations.
Just as the title alludes, evaluators are looking for leadership in the primary
duty. If the bullets are centered on performance and not on leadership, then
the maximum eect is not achieved. Obviously people can’t lead everything
they do; but it stands to reason, if their performance is being recognized, they
must have demonstrated higher levels of performance during the award pe-
riod. Also as the title alludes, the focus is on primary duty. e reader is com-
paring the nominee’s grade, skill level, and duty title against their primary
duty. Bullets that are not clearly part of their primary duty risk losing maxi-
mum eect. e fact this award package was submitted says the candidate is
number one without saying it. I seriously doubt you are submitting your #5
technician instead of other higher performing individuals because it is their
turn. Another point is to write what some call “job-related slang.” As dis-
cussed previously, know your audience and write to it. It’s hard for the reader
to assign value to a bullet when the jargon isn’t understood.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Signicant Self-improvement
Signicant self-improvement describes training and on- and o-
duty education. Describe how the member developed or improved
skills related to primary duties including formal training, career de-
velopment courses, on-the-job training, certications, education
related to primary duties, and so forth. Include completion of any
professional military education as well as awards earned during in-
residence attendance. Also include o-duty education such as com-
pletion of college classes, degree programs, and/or grade point aver-
age. Cite any other relevant training or activity that signicantly
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 69
enhanced the member’s value as a military citizen. Consider how the
member applied the education or training. Take account of force
multiplication or how others were mentored and force development
received a benet.
e key in this section is the words “signicant” and “self.” You see, it’s easy to
get wrapped up in developmental opportunities, but how it leads to your im-
provement is the key. Focus should also be on signicant improvement so
avoid physical tness training and other training, which are part of your nor-
mal duties or contingency and readiness preparation, which are not consid-
ered signicant, but required.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: e categories in an awards package are not simply things
to do; they guide the competencies you are being evaluated against. e
same goes for performance reports, résumés, and any competency-based
system.
Another key technique is to connect the education or training to
the mission. For example, maybe someone attended a LEAN process
improvement course and later applied the concepts to streamline one
of the processes in the organization. Conversely, other times it may
be better to clearly articulate completion of a course rather than try-
ing to connect the impact of the 301-level psychology class to the
mission.
Base and Community Involvement
Base and community involvement describes contributions toward
the installation, Air Force, or the local community. Document im-
provements/involvement in base ceremonies, tradition, and heritage
events when documenting base involvement. For community in-
volvement, record contributions to local organizations—such as ani-
mal shelters or food banks—and impact to local towns or cities. is
area denes the scope and impact of professional leadership and in-
volvement in both the military and civilian community. Also include
participation in unit advisory councils, professional military organi-
zations, associations, and events. Examples include roles such as
president of the Top 3 association, enlisted dining in/out committee,
Air Force Sergeants Association activities, Sunday school teacher,
parent-teacher association, and helping with any scout-related orga-
nizations.
70 │ JAREN
When describing this section, I call it the “G.I. experience,” with the G.I.
standing for get involved! Believe it or not, depending on the nominees’ rank
and position, there are certain expectations to ensure our heritage and tradi-
tions are not forgotten.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Mentoring
is describes contributions involving internal and external men-
toring. Internal mentoring develops Airmen within the member’s or-
ganization. Describe how the member has shaped careers, built road-
maps for success, and led unit members toward training, promotion,
education, and professional development. For external mentoring,
describe contributions involving Airmen across the base. Include
participation in seminars, panels, speaking engagements, and other
opportunities that inspired or led or developed junior members, en-
listed, civilians, ocers, and cadets outside the member’s organiza-
tion. While a category for mentoring is not typically found on award
packages, the signicance of the involvement is paramount to sharing
the many lessons learned during your career and developing future
leaders.
Practice Bullets
e following pages contain a variety of examples describing ac-
complishments in every category and at every level of performance.
Your task is to use the line-by-line scoring techniques to evaluate the
bullet and assign performance levels to each component. By practic-
ing, the categories and competencies are made clear.
Example 1 is already scored. Following example 1, use a pencil to
write the corresponding performance levels in each example. en
compare your assessment to the answers recorded in the book. Re-
member the two-levels concept. Are we close?
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 71
Leadership and Job Performance in Primary Duty
Example 1: 1/2 point—Membership
—Built continuity book; captured lessons learned—processes
more ecient
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership Built continuity book; captured lessons learned
Fluff — — processes more efficient
You cannot give credit when actions are not observed. Vague and
ambiguous language should not be rewarded. Spend the time to cite
the facts appropriately and then support the results. As demonstrated
in example 1, the lack of clarity for “process more ecient” resulted
in u and zero value.
Author’s Tip: Look out for statements written to imply higher levels
of performance, but in which the accomplishments are not supported
with corresponding action, impact, or result.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 73
Example 2
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—LEANd tool room; applied 5 S’s to tool issue—new process cut
15 mins/person
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is 3-part bullet is well supported. Consider the scope,
duration, impact, and time invested in accomplishing the activity.
74 │ JAREN
Example 2: 1 1/2 points–Management
—LEANd tool room; applied 5 S’s to tool issue—new process cut
15 mins/person
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management LEANd tool room — new process cut 15 mins/person
Supervisory — applied 5 S’s to tool issue —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
is is an interesting bullet. A few more words for clarication
would strengthen the process mapping activity. Using the two levels
concept, management or supervisory level is appropriate since the
process impacted multiple people. Imagine if the process was bench-
marked Air Force-wide; it could be a leadership-level result.
If you want to further strengthen the bullet, you could clarify how many peo-
ple were aected by the action. Was it 20 people or 200? Saving 15 hours each
for 200 people makes for a strong bullet.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: Even when the individual’s action and involvement are
not at the leadership level, contributions that clearly tie to leadership-
level results become exponentially valuable.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 75
Example 3
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—Hard charging attitude culminated in unit winning USAF
Verne Orr Award
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: Look out for statements written to imply higher levels
of leadership, but accomplishments not are supported with corre-
sponding action and impact.
76 │ JAREN
Example 3: 1/2 point—membership (or u)
—Hard charging attitude culminated in unit winning USAF
Verne Orr Award
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — winning USAF Verne Orr Award
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff Hard charging attitude culminated in unit
Even a membership-level score is gratuitous. Poorly written state-
ments like these are death bullets documented in many performance
appraisals and awards. Writers fall into the “halo eect” trap because
they mention a signicant award in the statement. Unit awards must
be supported by the individual’s contributions or no credit should be
given. is is another example of the TOS concept. Just because a unit
gets an award does not mean that the individual contributed toward
the achievement. Basically the individual was there and may deserve
membership level value just for being there.
If the person contributed to the USAF Verne Orr Award the writer should
describe how so. Tangible action that clearly connects to a powerful result is
undeniable. Simply being a part of a unit that wins the award doesn’t auto-
matically aord everyone the accolades.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 77
Example 4
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—AEF project ocer; planned logistics/schedule—300 pers/20
tons cargo to AOR
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
ough AEF is a common term, be sure the use of acronyms does not
detract from the overall package. If the reader must research or go
back and forth to a denition list, the merit of the accomplishment
may be lost in translation.
A way to rewrite this so the second accomplishment becomes an “impact”
statement is to write 300 pers/20 tons of cargo prepped for deployment.
—MSgt Casey T. Schoettmer, USAF, retired
78 │ JAREN
Example 4: 1 1/2 points–Management
—AEF project ocer; planned logistics/schedule—300 pers/20
tons cargo to AOR
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — 300 pers/20 tons cargo to AOR
Management AEF project officer planned logistics/schedule
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: is is a two-part bullet without a result. Regardless,
the high-level responsibility and impact reect signicant competen-
cies. e results may not materialize until aer the deployment. is
would be dicult to rate this lower than management using the two
levels concept.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 79
Signicant Self-Improvement
Example 5
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—Completed College Math CLEP; received six credits toward
associate’s degree
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: A College Level Examination Program (CLEP) is a
building block in the education process.
80 │ JAREN
Example 5: 1/2 point–Membership
— Completed College Math CLEP; received six credits toward
associate’s degree
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership Completed College Math CLEP; received six credits toward…
Fluff — —
is example has two components—impact and accomplishment.
Completion of a CLEP exam is six credits toward a degree—a build-
ing block toward a larger educational milestone.
To possibly strengthen this bullet, one could state how many classes away
from the milestone the member is. is shows eort and enduring dedication.
Some readers don’t agree with listing it as a CLEP as it doesn’t carry the same
message as attending a class for weeks. However, since an accredited college
accepts CLEP as an equivalency to their in-residence requirement, then so
should we. A better technique may be to state, “completed college math” and
leave it at that.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: Completing a CLEP exam puts the member on the way
toward achieving a degree. But one CLEP is a small building block
of a larger accomplishment so it reects membership-level performance.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 81
Example 6
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—Awarded CCAF degree! Completed two classes to satisfy nal
requirements
Result Action Impact
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is is a three-part bullet with components arranged in
reverse format.
82 │ JAREN
Example 6: 1 point–Supervisory
—Awarded CCAF degree! Completed two classes to satisfy nal
requirements
Result Action Impact
Leadership — — —
Management Awarded CCAF degree! — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — completed two classes to satisfy final requirements
Fluff — — —
Supervisorylevel best describes this accomplishment. Scoring is
not a perfect science. However, the most important component of
this bullet is the award of a Community College of the Air Force
(CCAF) degree and the individual’s contributions directly tie into
that result.
Author’s Tip: Another consideration is the rank of the individual.
Completion of a CCAF degree might not carry as much weight for a
senior NCO as it would for a junior Airman.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 83
Example 7
Use a pencil to write bullet components alongside the corresponding
performance level. en compare your assessment.
—Finished 2-year program; awarded FAA Airframe and Power-
plant (A&P) license
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: Look out for statements written to imply higher levels
of leadership but lack supporting evidence showing accomplishment
corresponds with impact.
Author’s Tip: is is an important example of knowing your audi-
ence. Readers who are not in the aviation industry may not know the
scope or duration to earn a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
A&P license.
84 │ JAREN
Example 7: 1 1/2 points–Management
—Finished 2-year program; awarded FAA Airframe and Power-
plant (A&P) license
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management Finished 2-year program —
Supervisory — awarded FAA Airframe and Powerplant (A&P)...
Membership — —
Fluff — —
is is a great self-improvement bullet for an aircra maintenance
technician. e program is valuable as it directly contributes to the
mission and career eld.
An important self-improvement note is whether it contributes to the career
eld. ere are instances where people are pursuing goals that do not neces-
sarily contribute to their immediate duty but toward long-term personal
goals. Either way, ensure the intent is captured so the reader is not confused.
Developing this further, one can show how this accomplishment contributed
to both personal and professional development.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: e bullet describes the license as a two-year program.
at should provide some measure to help assess the value the ac-
complishment. Using the two levels concept, were we close?
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 85
Example 8
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—John Levitow winner! Awarded “Top Graduate” during 6-week
SNCO Academy
Result Action Impact
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is 3-part bullet is rearranged following the who’s-
your-audience trap to highlight the strengths at the beginning of the
bullet.
86 │ JAREN
Example 8: 2 points–Leadership
—John Levitow winner! Awarded “Top Graduate” during 6-week
SNCO Academy
Result Action Impact
Leadership John Levitow winner! Awarded “Top Graduate”
Management — — —
Supervisory — — during 6-week SNCO Academy
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Do not allow the supervisory-level impact to aect the value of
this bullet. Scoring is not a checklist process; it is a guide to help iden-
tify the strengths and weaknesses in the bullet. Clearly, the John Lev-
itow winner at the SNCO Academy warrants a leadership-level score.
To further strengthen this accomplishment, one can discuss the class
size competing for this honor.
Author’s Tip: Do not conceal a top graduate award or other signi-
cant results in the middle or end of the bullet. Instead, align the best
part of the bullet at the beginning so that it’s not missed.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 87
Base and Community Involvement
Example 9
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—SecAF visit lead; chaired wing committee—planned 5 major
events/12 unit tours
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is is a 3-part bullet. e action “Secretary of the Air
Force visit lead” is actually a mini-job title. A mini job title is used to
qualify the action, impact, and results that may normally be outside
normal duties.
88 │ JAREN
Example 9: 2 points–Leadership
—SecAF visit lead; chaired wing committee—planned 5 major
events/12 unit tours
Action Impact Result
Leadership SecAF visit lead; planned 5 major events/12 unit tours
Management — chaired wing committee
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
is is a top-level accomplishment. e person leading the Secre-
tary of the Air Force visit is hand-selected.
If you want to further strengthen the bullet, you could add the impact or the
outcome of the visit and the how the individual contributed to the outcome.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: is is a strong accomplishment that demonstrates a
high level of responsibility. is performance clearly exemplies gen-
eral competencies expected of a senior NCO ready for promotion to
the next higher grade.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 89
Example 10
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. en compare your assessment.
—Led carwash fundraiser; organized people/logistics—raised
$200 for party
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is bullet is well supported. Although the word led
was used, the reader needs to consider the scope of the project to de-
termine the appropriate context to assign a performance level.
90 │ JAREN
Example 10: 1 point–supervisory
—Led carwash fundraiser; organized people/logistics—raised
$200 for party
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory Led carwash fundraiser; organized people/logistics
Membership — — raised $200 for party
Fluff — — —
Supervisory-level action and impact best describes this accom-
plishment. e words describing impact may be perceived as man-
agement level, but the $200 result is membership level, resulting in an
overall supervisory performance level.
Author’s Tip: To clarify ambiguous components always think in
terms of two levels. Consider the impact in this bullet: if organized
people/logistics for a car wash was not management level, then what?
Leadership level would be a stretch, and the scope of the eort leads
back to supervisory level (small team / small program). e two levels
concept helps to frame the overall context of the accomplishment.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 91
Example 11
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Chaired banquet committee; led 25 people—planned event for
300 guests
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: is bullet is well supported with the number of people
“guided” and the impact of the event.
92 │ JAREN
Example 11: 1 1/2 points–Management
—Chaired banquet committee; led 25 people—planned event for
300 guests
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management Chaired banquet committee; led 25 people
Supervisory — — planned event for 300 guests
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Did the two level concept help on this example? e overall bullet
is sound at the management level. ere is enough information to see
the level of performance. However, the value could go up or down
based on the rank of the individual leading the committee. It would
be very hard to imagine someone scoring membership level.
Author’s Tip: is bullet can be strengthened with more impact and
result information supporting a professional seminar, heritage, or
history event. Also, consider if VIPs were engaged like the mayor, ag
ocers, or dignitaries.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 93
Example 12
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Top 3 pres; unied 165 members; managed progress/executed
65 events
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: e words “Top 3 President” are a mini-job title. e
title infers a certain level of leadership, but it must be supported with
corresponding accomplishments.
94 │ JAREN
Example 12: 2 points–Leadership
—Top 3 pres; unied 165 members; managed progress/executed
65 events
Action Impact Result
Leadership Top 3 pres managed progress/executed 65 base events
Management — unified 165 members —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: No ambiguity here. e words Top 3 president are sup-
ported with strong action, impact, and results.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 95
Mentoring
Example 13
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Mentored 3 Airmen; taught writing tips—eliminated rewrites
by 20%
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: Consider the rank of the individual teaching the Air-
men and whether or not the term Airmen contextually refers to E-4
and below or if it is used generically for all ranks.
96 │ JAREN
Example 13: 1/2 point–Membership
—Mentored 3 Airmen; taught writing tips—eliminated rewrites
by 20%
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory Mentored 3 Airmen — eliminated rewrites by 20%
Membership — taught writing tips —
Fluff — — —
In this example, the action and result are considered supervisory
level since teaching your subordinates is a basic expectation of a super-
visor.
To further strengthen this bullet, the impact may shi from decreasing re-
writes by 20% to explain how the action restored an established standard of
excellence. If the writing issue was severely dysfunctional, then merely im-
proving by 20% may not have improved enough. Be sure to describe the rele-
vance of the 20%. Another example is if we decrease safety incidents by 20%,
one could conclude we still have safety incidences as we didn’t eliminate them
completely. In this case, are the remaining safety incidents acceptable?
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 97
Example 14
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Facilitated seminar; taught writing course—molded 36 future
supervisors
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: Consider the scope, duration, and time invested in ac-
complishing the activity.
98 │ JAREN
Example 14: 1 point–Supervisory
— Facilitated seminar; taught writing course—molded 36 future
supervisors
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory Facilitated seminar; taught writing course — molded 36 future...
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Supervisory-level action, impact, and result best describe this ac-
complishment. is is a one-time event taking one hour to accom-
plish. e amount of time preparing for the class is unknown. Poten-
tially, the writer could have described how the individual created a
lesson plan. at added information might increase the value of the
action to management level if additional competencies are demon-
strated.
Author’s Tip: is bullet describes application of competencies ex-
pected of NCOs and senior NCOs. Variables added can steer this into
any one of the three primary categories. As written, it ows into pri-
mary duty. As the member’s rst presentation aer receiving facilita-
tion training, it can be self-improvement. Finally, if the context is o-
base JROTC development, it’s community involvement.
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 99
Example 15
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Led 5-day orientation course; planned development seminar
for 100 people
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management — —
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
Author’s Tip: is is a strong accomplishment demonstrating man-
agement-level competencies.
100 │ JAREN
Example 15: 1 1/2 points–Management
—Led 5-day orientation course; planned development seminar
for 100 people
Accomplishment Impact
Leadership — —
Management Led 5-day orientation course; planned development seminar for 100 people
Supervisory — —
Membership — —
Fluff — —
is example resulted in a management-level score. e accom-
plishment is management level, and using the two level concept, the
impact would be supervisory/management level.
To further strengthen this bullet, the writer can clarify the impact of the week-
long course to provide more leadership involvement. How many competen-
cies taught to the students? Who are the students?
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
PERFECT PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT │ 101
Example 16
Use a pencil to write bullet components adjacent to the correspond-
ing performance level. Compare your assessment.
—Base mentor; taught NCOPE, ROTC, ALS, FTAC—shaped 325
future leaders
Action Impact Result
Leadership — — —
Management — — —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
Author’s Tip: e use of acronyms should be kept to a minimum. Be
sure they do not detract from the overall package. If the reader has to
study or constantly review a denition list, the merit of the accom-
plishment becomes lost in translation.
102 │ JAREN
Example 16: 2 points–Leadership
—Base mentor; taught NCOPE, ROTC, ALS, FTAC—shaped 325
future leaders
Action Impact Result
Leadership Base mentor — shaped 325 future leaders
Management — taught NCOPE, ROTC, ALS, FTAC —
Supervisory — — —
Membership — — —
Fluff — — —
To strengthen this, the writer can include the frequency if applicable. If 325
were taught during four or six seminars, the inferred diligence and dedication
sends an even stronger message. en it’s not looked at as a one-time event.
—CMSgt James Martin, USAF, retired
Author’s Tip: In this example, the lead in base mentor is supported
by the action and result placing the competency at the leadership
level. e person is involved in professional enhancement (PE) semi-
nars, Airmen leadership schools (ALS), First-Term Airmen Center
(FTAC), and the reserve ocer training corps (ROTC). is exempli-
es a high level of mentoring and involvement.
Summary
When writing bullets, remember the competencies are expected to
match the rank and grade of the individual. ese competencies set
the stage for the performance levels and categories of which you
should write. Remove ambiguity and minimize general statements to
create a more signicant package. Emphasize the action by tying the
performance to the impact or result. Now with well-written bullets
packaged neatly into proper categories, it is time to consider the
board process. e last chapter reviews a basic board process, which
includes how to resolve disputes and tiebreakers.
Note
1. K. Anders Ericsson, Ralph T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Romer, “e Role
of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance,” Psychological Re-
view 100, no. 3 (January 1993): 363–406.
Part 4
Conducting Boards
When leaders yield, there is no resistance, when leaders insist
there is no yielding.
—Ulysses S. Grant
Part 4 includes a bonus chapter that teaches a fair and consistent ap-
proach to conducting boards. is part focuses on a contentious
topic, the tie-breaking process.
As in any business endeavor, board members need to get beyond po-
sitional obligations to discuss the underlying interests. If profession-
als cannot get past their ego, then the best outcome is diminished and
the process may come to a halt. If a picture is worth a thousand words,
allow me to paint a story.
Chapter 10
You Just Can’t Make is Up
In 2002 four of us were involved in an annual awards board that
ended in a tie. I was perplexed because the scores were not close,
based on my scoring—the ones taught in this book. Back then, an-
nual awards took up both sides of a nomination package and com-
prised almost 80 lines of information.
Package A weighed in at nearly 95 points. Package B, purportedly
tied, amassed only 35 points using the same scoring system taught in
this book. Yes, 35 points meant package B was bad, really bad. Most
of the lines, one aer another, were u. And those lines that were
not u were not good.
As the board discussed the merits of the tied packages, I noticed
two of the board members were relating their thoughts from clean
sheets of paper. No notes, no marks—just a score on the top of the
page that boiled 80 lines of information down to one numerical value.
It had been two weeks since the scores were turned in; so, these mem-
bers must have good memories.
Looking back to my packages, every line was underlined and cir-
cled, and scores were placed in the margin suggesting strengths and
weaknesses.
One board member said he “really” liked package B and cited one
of the accomplishments.
Glancing to the margin on my corresponding package, I recog-
nized the merit of that line and assigned a zero. I also noticed that 25
other lines in package B were u. e board member read the state-
ment that had impressed him, “Volunteered to attend professional
military education school early.” I pointed out how this and so many
other bullets were unsupported and lacking in any factual informa-
tion—any tangible action. Further investigation revealed he did not
actually go to school. He only volunteered.
Conversely, package A was loaded with management- and leader-
ship-level contributions. It was easy to nd the 1-1/2s and 2s in the
margin and then match the underlined words that identied the
strengths. is is probably a good time to point out the package-A
nominee was not from my organization.
106 │ JAREN
I scratched my head and pointed out that package A only had two
lines of u compared to 25 lines in package B. e other board
member replied, “Yeah, but I really, really like package B.” Oh, con-
secutive “reallys!”
Imagine package B littered in circles, a method to highlight weak
or unsupported accomplishments. I realized the board member did
not have a good memory, and he just did not know what he was doing.
In any dispute process, positions must be supported by merit. Dis-
cussions cannot be based on how much you really, really like a certain
package (or person).
Bottom line: package B was lled with u, and the other board
member did not want to discuss—or was unable to discuss—under-
lying interests. Without telling you how the board ended, just know I
had a few sleepless nights.
I thought the tiebreaker was going to be easy; unfortunately, our
awards program did not have provisions for such disputes. We went
back and forth advocating packages and never made headway.
What does it all mean? I stand by the benets of a consistent ap-
proach, as it leads to a fair outcome—certainly a fairer process than
the personal preference method.
Author’s Tip: e best way to resolve disputes is to prevent them. Use
line-by-line scoring with clear guidance and a consistent process.
Ben Franklin prolically stated, “An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.” Most organizations have basic guidance for boards.
Experience shows it is a gram of prevention instead of an ounce.
Guidance typically does not include preboard training or setup. Even
if it does, many board members are not adequately trained in the
consistent process as described in this book.
I have taught Chief Jaren’s system to more than 600 Airmen, NCOs, and Se-
nior NCOs over the last three years. In doing so several second- and third-
order eects have come from this instruction. One ancillary lesson is the en-
during principle that when grading packages facts will beat emotion every
time. How students feel about a bullet fails in the presence of other students
using this system. Furthermore, by only providing limited facts, the same way
performance reports and recognition packages are oen submitted, students
become frustrated. eir annoyance drives home the principle that what is on
the 1206 is what is graded, nothing more, and nothing less.
—MSgt Justin Deisch, USAF
YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS UP │ 107
e key principles in this book will provide the ounce of preven-
tion. Referring back to the previous chapters, the highlights of any
board process should include:
1. Line-by-line scoring. Each accomplishment should be scored
on its own merit. is also helps in the tie-breaking process.
2. Performance levels. e numbering system isn’t important.
Consistent line-by-line scoring by all board members is needed
to minimize bias.
3. Board training and setup. Whatever measures are used, ensure
board members are aligned. Consider a few sample bullets to
standardize the team before beginning the review.
So what about tie-breakers? Because packages are tightly competi-
tive, ties are inevitably going to occur. Fortunately, through our expe-
riences, the group awards’ instruction was rewritten to include the
tenets of the 715th Air Mobility Squadron awards scoring system. We
also added the dispute resolution process.
Bonus Chapter
e author provides an online bonus chapter that encompasses a
basic board process, including how to resolve disputes and deal with
tiebreakers. is chapter is available for download on http://www
.BrownBagLessons.com.
Conclusion
Whether you are an accomplished writer or a novice, you will see
the merit in the approach. is book does not teach how to write a
bullet. It teaches how to write a powerful bullet. It unlocks a secret
that has beneted thousands. Now, I trust that it will benet you.
roughout a long career, you tend to learn a trick or two. At
times, a mentor or supervisor shares tricks of the trade. Regrettably,
we oen learn from the school of hard knocks. Fortunately, every
once in a while, a bit of luck comes your way. e magic contained
herein teaches a critical eye, and the result is the composition of a
powerful bullet.
108 │ JAREN
You now have a simple three-step process to identify the strengths
and weaknesses in a bullet. You not only learned how to write but
also, more importantly, you honed a critical eye and learned what not
to write!
ousands of people have beneted from this information. Armed
with these tried-and-true principles, you will hold the key to putting
the power in your pen. e key is to write bullets accurately while
truly capturing the accomplishments of your people. at is what it is
all about—documenting the hard work and accomplishments that
our people do, day in and day out.
Aer a 30-year Air Force career, and as someone who has traveled
just a bit further down the road, I humbly oer to you my Brown Bag
Lessons.
Warm regards,
Eric Jaren
Abbre viations
A&P Airframe and Powerplant
AEF air and space expeditionary force
AI accomplishment-impact
AIR action-impact-result
ALS Airman Leadership School
AOR area of responsibility
BDOC C3 Base Defense Operations Center, command, control,
and communications
CAS close air support
CBT computer-based training
CCAF Community College of the Air Force
CFC Combined Federal Campaign
CGO company grade ocer
CLEP College-Level Examination Program
CSAF chief of sta of the Air Force
EPR enlisted performance report
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FTAC First-Term Airman Center
GPA grade point average
JROTC Junior Reserve Ocer Training Corps
LVN licensed vocational nurse
NCO noncommissioned ocer
NCOPE NCO professional enhancement
PE professional enhancement
PERSCO personnel support for contingency operations
R2d removed and replaced
ROTC Reserve Ocer Training Corps
110 │ JAREN
SecAF Secretary of the Air Force
SME subject matter expert
SNCOA Senior Noncommissioned Ocer Academy
SOS Squadron Ocer School
t/s troubleshoot
TOS tactical-operational-strategic
TTP techniques, tactics, and procedures
UCI unit compliance inspection
W/U write up
Appendix
Further Resources
Readers should visit www.brownbaglessons.com to access addi-
tional information. is site provides free training aids, course mate-
rials, and other tools to facilitate Brown Bag Lessons.
Keep an eye out for more Brown Bag Lessons.
Contact Information
www.linkedin.com/in/ericjaren
www.brownbaglessons.com/
