I agree with Gord Thompson's answer - mainly because it's so non-intuitive to have, essentially, two completely different types of data in a single column, and because it's going to make validation/data integrity stuff so much harder with little upside - and, as he indicates with the CDate()
reference, dates basically only work reliably like dates if they're in a "date/time" field. Microsoft has a page on choosing a data type that explains some of the Access-specific differences in more detail.
I also suggest that you don't actually have a text field for those "comments," since you say there's only a handful of potential options - use a Long Integer and connect back to a separate table with the list of allowable entries. This will allow you to run reports more easily, change the "display text" in one step instead of potentially dozens of times, etc. It also saves a relatively small amount of space per record (long integer = 4 bytes; text = up to 255 bytes.)
You can also do fun data/reporting stuff with that Comment (long integer) field and dates - even combined into ranges, by the way - queries let you use the two different columns to create a single answer. I have a report that's grouped so that you can see stats for everything that's active (by quarter in which they start) plus everything that's pending (with the code indicating who's responsible for watching this record,) plus everything that's not pending but still doesn't have a start date (with the reason code displayed,) plus everything that's expired (by quarter in which they ended.) It looks like each of those things is in a single column in the report, but it's actually like five columns that have been concatenated with the IIf function.
(Almost every argument I can come up with boils down to "this is what relational databases are all about and why they're so awesome.)