Archives Branch: Command Chronology Program

Section II - Narrative Summary

Section II - Narrative Summary is a written summation of the administrative, operational, and logistical experiences of the command during the given reporting period.

Written from the Commander’s viewpoint, the Command Chronology must be presented in sufficient detail to convey the unique characteristics and qualities of the command. Command Chronologies should highlight the most significant accomplishments and/or problems with emphasis on approaches and techniques used to achieve success. This section must reflect the specific missions and tasks assigned to the command, the status and readiness throughout the period, and the command goals and accomplishments. All significant programs and policy decisions adopted or implemented during the reporting period should be fully defined. Changes in facilities, acquisition of new equipment, tests of equipment or doctrine, contributions to the evolution of doctrine, and problem areas should also be included in the report. The objective is to ensure that the report covers all aspects of the command, even those that may be temporarily detached. In short, document who, what, when, where, why and how of the command activities. Events in this section are to be supported by references to supporting documents.

Section II - Narrative Summary Checklist

This checklist is by no means exhaustive or exclusive, but the items listed in it should be addressed and well defined within the narrative summary.

1. Is the Command Chronology written from the commanders viewpoint? The command chronology should not read like an award application. Reports have been written as if they are from staff members and subordinate commanders to the commanding officer. The Command chronology is written from the Commanding Officer reflecting the units place in USMC hierarchy to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

2. Is there sufficient detail to convey the unique operational, logistical and administrative characteristics and qualities of the command?

3. Were the most significant accomplishments and/or problems, with emphasis on approaches and techniques used to achieve success highlighted?

4. Does the report cover all aspects of the command, even those that may be temporarily detached?

5. Were supporting documents referenced to provide clarity and completeness?

6. Does the report reflect the specific missions and tasks assigned to the command?

7. Does the report describe the status and readiness through out the period, and the command goals and accomplishments?

8. Are significant programs and policy decisions adopted or implemented during the reporting period fully defined? 

9. Are changes in facilities, acquisitions of new equipment, tests of equipment of doctrine, contributions to the evolution of doctrine, and problem areas included?