Primary Navigation for the CDC Website
CDC en Español

Guidance for Commissioned Corps Awards Nominations

Each nomination must contain:

  1. A correctly completed PHS 6342-2 (for individual awards) or PHS 6342-1 (for group awards) - see http://dcp.psc.gov under “Forms.”
  2. A correctly formatted narrative of no more than two pages (No nominations will be sent to DCP for final approval if they are incorrectly formatted).
  3. Nomination forms for EIS officers must include a signature from EPO.
  4. The original forms with the appropriate signatures must be submitted with the narrative attached by the appropriate deadline.
  5. Be sure the “period covered” includes the month and year and that the nomination is not more than 13 months after the period ended.
  6. An original 6342 and nomination narrative plus 17 copies; give to your CIO awards representative by the CIO deadline date.

Completing form 6342:

  1. Be sure the “period covered” includes month and year and that the nominator’s signature was not more than 13 months after the period ended
  2. Make sure the text in the “cited for” box is 25 words or less.
  3. Be sure all awards granted during the three years prior to the start date for this nomination, and any other awards that might be considered to overlap with this nomination are listed on page 2.
  4. If civilians are included in a group award with commissioned officers, their names need to be listed on a separate sheet of paper (not as part of the narrative). After the names are listed, make a general statement of the type of award they have already received for this work (if applicable). For example,”the civilian members of this group received the ___________ award for their participation in the group/team/unit (which ever).”

Formatting the narrative:

  1. 2 page maximum; 1”margins
  2. No less than a 10 point font will be accepted, though 12 point is easier to read; preferred fonts are courier, prestige, elite, arial, or times new roman.
  3. Use rank throughout (CAPT, CDR, LCDR) – do not use “Dr.”, “Ms.”, “Mr.” Etc.
  4. Use of bullets is strongly recommended, but not required.
  5. Avoid highly technical language and superlatives (let the facts speak for themselves)
  6. Avoid the use of future tenses (e.g., “will”) for impacts.

Ways to improve the chances of success for a nomination:

  1. Nominee should contribute to or write the narrative since they know the work and impact the best.
  2. Make sure the citation in the narrative matches the “cited for” section of the form.
  3. Be sure the citation includes the appropriate “key words” for the specific award (e.g., OSM nominations should include “for outstanding continuous leadership in”). There are 6 individual honor award levels for officers. The words in the narrative should be reflective of the words for the level of award, e.g., if the proposed award is an OSM for continuous outstanding leadership, then the text should focus on examples of leadership. It is suggested that you write the nomination first then decide the appropriate level of award.
  4. Be sure that the “period covered” on the nomination form matches the dates in the narrative.
  5. Ensure the specific role of the officer in the activity is clearly explained! This is essential! (See example.) Be sure to address any obstacles or difficulties the officer had to overcome and how the officer used his/her unique skills to address those barriers successfully.
  6. Emphasize the public health impact of the activity. This is also essential! (See example.) Consider including changes in morbidity/mortality, changes in transmission of disease, protection of workers, and examples of how better data influenced policy, etc.
  7. Include specific information, especially quantitative information, whenever possible (avoid terms like some, many, etc.).
  8. Use these types of terms: “established, founded, organized, chaired, provided leadership, led, developed a unique, implemented a major, essential, exemplary service, role model, motivated others to pursue excellence, negotiated with, used expertise following collaborative review of...”..
  9. Listen to your awards representatives (each center has one). Failure to follow their advice increases the chance that your nomination will be bounced back or rejected. Their suggestions may seem trivial or irrelevant but remember that the Commissioned Corps Awards Board likes things in very specific (albeit seemingly strange) ways. Once the award clears CDC, it has a very good chance of being accepted at DCP.

Common reasons for having a nomination rejected:

  1. The specific role of the officer is not clearly explained. It is not sufficient to say an officer led a project and then provide no further detail on what actually was involved.
  2. The impact of the activity is not well described. (This is the most common mistake). Impact statements answer the question, “So what?”
  3. The nomination is too technical. (Remember that the DCP board consists of members from agencies, such as FDA or IHS, that may not be familiar with CDC-type activities. On a technical spectrum from a scientific abstract to a newspaper article, the nomination should be closer to a newspaper article so that officers from all backgrounds can understand the importance of the accomplishments and impact).
  4. Quantitative information is omitted.
  5. The accomplishments and activities are not appropriate for the level of award.
  6. The award appears to have overlap with a previous award with no explanation. Address the distinction between this award and a previous award if there is any chance it will be questioned as overlapping (for example if the one line on Part II of 6342 has any overlapping terminology with the current citation).
  7. Wrong font size, typos, or incorrect use of officer’s title.

Example of recommended layout:

Alternative layout: (same as above but with impact following each accomplishment, ideally in bullet format). This is suitable when there is a direct one-to-one relationship between accomplishments and impacts.

Examples of nonspecific vs specific accomplishments and impacts

Accomplishments

Impacts

Special Issues

Last Reviewed: February 20, 2008