S.O.L.A.R.

Do not begin by hunting for an impressive verb. First separate the accomplishment into evidence categories.

When facts are missing, recover them before polishing. Exact counts are best; a defensible estimate, range, frequency, or proportion may be used when its basis is identified.

A reader should understand the action and why it mattered without borrowing information from another statement. Common structures include:

One or two closely related clauses can work. A list of unrelated duties usually cannot. Use the strongest supported facts, not every available number.

Use the strongest relationship the evidence supports. Do not weaken a clearly owned result to “supported,” and do not claim sole causation for a broad result produced by many people or conditions.

Prefer the closest documented outcome when a higher-level mission effect is uncertain. “Recovered four assets” is stronger and safer than an invented readiness claim.

Forceful wording is not automatically fluff. In an EPB, a compact evaluative verb can communicate excellent execution when the surrounding facts justify it.

Complete sentence

A complete sentence has a subject or understood actor, a finite verb, and a complete thought. Air Force narrative can omit the member’s name when the actor is still clear.

Fused sentence or run-on

Two independent clauses are joined with no punctuation or connector. Length alone does not make a run-on; faulty clause connection does.

Comma splice

Two independent clauses are joined only by a comma.

Semicolon

A semicolon may join closely related independent clauses. Do not use it between a verb and its object or merely to imitate older bullet style.

• Unclear pronoun: “it,” “they,” or “them” could refer to more than one noun. Replace it with the intended item or restructure.
• Dangling modifier: an opening phrase appears to describe the wrong subject. Place the actor immediately after the phrase.
• Subject shift: the sentence moves from the member to the team or program without making ownership clear.
• Faulty parallelism: items in a series use mismatched forms, such as “led, coordinating, and corrected.” Use “led, coordinated, and corrected.”
• Modifier ambiguity: a percentage or result appears to modify the wrong action. Move it beside the fact it describes.
• Nominalization: “conducted an analysis of” is usually clearer as “analyzed.”
• Redundant setup: phrases such as “in order to,” “a total of,” and “during this period” often consume space without adding meaning.
• Misspelling and capitalization: correct mechanics, but do not classify a vocabulary, evidence, or tone issue as grammar.

Metrics show scale, quality, reach, difficulty, or change. They become useful only when the reader understands what they measure and how they relate to the action.

• Exact: “completed 37 evaluations.”
• Evidence-based estimate: “approximately 40 launches,” based on two launches per week for 20 recorded weeks.
• Range: “supported 18–22 events,” when source records establish the bounds.
• Frequency: “performed two inspections weekly for six months,” when exact totals are unavailable but the schedule is documented.
• Vague: “a few,” “some,” “many,” “often,” or “multiple” is usually inadequate final scope.

Percent versus percentage points

An increase from 80% to 99% is a 19-percentage-point increase, but a 23.75% relative increase. Verify which calculation the source supports.

Choose metrics deliberately

Do not pack every number into limited space. Keep the figures that best show scope, ownership, difficulty, quality, and result.

Leadership allows credit for directing, coordinating, training, deciding, or improving team performance. It does not automatically mean the leader personally completed every action.

Select the version that matches the records. Do not use passive wording merely to hide uncertain ownership.

Junior Airmen may not know terms such as Flying Hour Program or how routine work connects to a unit mission. Ask plain-language questions before using specialized mission language.

• What scheduled mission, training event, exercise, inspection, test, deployment, or customer requirement did the work support?
• What would have been delayed, unavailable, unsafe, noncompliant, or more costly without the action?
• What immediate documented result occurred before the broader mission effect?
• Which records or supervisor can confirm the connection?

Public unit or career-field information may help identify terminology and better questions. It cannot prove that a specific Airman supported a specific mission or produced a claimed result.

The four Major Performance Areas are evaluation lenses, not mandatory buzzwords. Choose the block that best matches the demonstrated behavior.

An accomplishment may fit more than one MPA. Do not distort the facts merely to force a category.

• Use plain language and broadly understood terms. The current AFPC list and approved categories control performance-statement acronyms and abbreviations.
• An approved term is permitted, not required. Spell it out when readability is better and space permits.
• Do not invent an acronym meaning from context. Verify uncertain technical terms.
• Compact EPB forms such as &, hrs, 5%, $320K, and approved organizational abbreviations may be necessary.
• Citations use more formal prose and generally expand EPB shorthand.
• Preserve qualifiers such as approximately, up to, partially, or a stated range; never convert them into exact universal claims.

Choose a form and use it consistently throughout the EPB unless a required title, quoted name, or proper noun demands otherwise. Consistency helps the reader focus on performance instead of noticing avoidable style changes.

• If and is spelled out in one statement, spell it out throughout the EPB; if & is selected, use it throughout.
• Use the same number style for comparable quantities, following the product rule for digits, written numbers, percentages, and compact forms.
• Use one approved acronym or abbreviation form consistently; do not alternate between a full term, an acronym, and an improvised shortener without a reason.
• Keep capitalization, unit naming, tense, and punctuation patterns consistent across related statements.

Consistency is not a reason to preserve an error. Correct the form everywhere when the chosen form is unsupported or inappropriate for the product.

Repeated words consume space and make otherwise strong writing sound mechanical. Review both the individual statement and the complete EPB.

• Avoid using the same important noun or verb twice in one statement when the sentence can be recast clearly; for example, do not repeat inventory when the second use can become audit, effort, or a restructured clause.
• Do not begin adjacent statements with the same word or phrase when a natural alternative preserves meaning.
• Vary structure as well as vocabulary: action-first, leadership-first, and impact-forward constructions can prevent a repetitive package.
• Do not force a synonym that changes technical meaning, ownership, tense, or causal strength. Precise repetition is better than an inaccurate substitute.

Do not attach an award, inspection result, mission total, or organizational success to a convenient statement merely because both occurred during the same period. The action must have a defensible relationship to the impact.

• Before crediting an action with a quarterly or annual award, review the AF Form 1206 or other source package and verify that the action materially helped earn that recognition.
• Use immediate outcomes for individual actions: discrepancies corrected, equipment restored, people qualified, time reduced, or requirements completed.
• Cumulative work—such as annual tool transactions, aircraft launches, inspections, or training hours—may connect to broader outcomes such as an annual award, annual QA rate, or Flying Hour Program (FHP) execution when records and ownership support that relationship.
• When several people or work centers produced the broader result, use enabled, contributed to, or supported according to the evidence rather than claiming sole causation.

Association is not causation. If the source package does not connect the action to the impact, use the closest documented result or omit the broader claim.

1. Remove redundant setup and repeated context.
2. Replace wordy phrases with direct verbs.
3. Use approved compact forms and symbols.
4. Remove the weakest or redundant metric—not the strongest evidence.
5. Combine related clauses while preserving clear ownership.
6. Remove unsupported claims before supported facts.

Do not shorten by changing causation, transferring team output to the member, deleting a material qualifier, or turning an estimate into an exact result.

Review a citation as one complete formal product. Sentence count does not require a user setting.

• Preserve required opening and closing language already supplied; never invent names, grades, units, dates, or award facts.
• Use past tense for accomplishments. Formal closing language may use prescribed present-tense wording.
• Avoid “during this period” when the inclusive dates are already in the opening.
• Use formal wording and expand informal EPB shorthand.
• Maintain chronology, transitions, balanced accomplishment coverage, and consistent ownership.
• Prefer substantive, quantifiable accomplishments and avoid unsupported absolutes.
• When rewriting, produce a complete citation—not disconnected sentence replacements.

• Does the statement stand alone?
• Is the member’s action or leadership clear?
• Is personal versus team ownership accurate?
• Are all figures traceable or defensibly estimated?
• Are percentages described correctly?
• Is the closest immediate outcome stated?
• Is the broader impact caused, enabled, contributed to, or merely supported?
• Does the verb strength match the evidence?
• Are approved terms used readably?
• Are there fragments, fused sentences, comma splices, unclear pronouns, or modifier problems?
• Does each clause earn its limited space?
• Was any material qualifier lost?
• Does the product meet its actual character or line constraint?
• Would a reader outside the career field understand it?