Blogs

Guideline E Personal Conduct in Security Clearance Cases

Security clearance cases involving Guideline E: Personal Conduct can be particularly serious because they often concern an applicant’s honesty, judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, or willingness to follow rules and regulations. Unlike some of the other adjudicative guidelines, Guideline E is broad enough to encompass many different types of conduct, including alleged falsification of security forms, lack of candor during an investigation, workplace misconduct, repeated rule violations, misuse of government resources, and other behavior that may raise questions about whether an individual can be trusted with classified or sensitive information.

Guideline E issues frequently arise during initial security clearance investigations, periodic or continuous vetting, clearance upgrades, and reviews of existing national security eligibility.

For individuals facing these concerns, the specific facts matter enormously. An allegation of misconduct does not automatically mean that a clearance will be denied or revoked. The government evaluates both the potentially disqualifying conduct and the circumstances that may explain, rebut, or mitigate it under the whole-person concept.

What Is Guideline E: Personal Conduct?

Guideline E is one of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines contained in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4).

The central security concern is whether an individual’s conduct demonstrates questionable judgment, dishonesty, lack of candor, unreliability, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

These concerns matter in the security clearance context because individuals entrusted with classified or sensitive information must be relied upon to provide truthful information and comply with security requirements.

Common Guideline E Security Clearance Issues

Guideline E can arise in many circumstances. Some of the most common cases involve the following.

1. Alleged Falsification or Omission on the SF-86 or Security Clearance Application

One of the most significant Guideline E allegations involves an accusation that an applicant deliberately omitted, concealed, or falsified information on an SF-86, NBIS eApp submission, personnel security questionnaire, employment document, or related government form.

Typical disputes may concern the failure to disclose:

• prior employment problems;
• disciplinary actions or terminations;
• arrests or criminal matters;
• drug involvement;
• financial problems;
• foreign contacts or interests;
• previous security clearance problems; or
• other information requested by the applicable questionnaire.

The critical issue in many of these cases is intent.

There can be an important difference between deliberately concealing information and making an innocent mistake, misunderstanding a question, forgetting information, or interpreting a question differently from an investigator or adjudicator.

For example, the fact that information was omitted from an SF-86 does not by itself answer the separate question of whether the omission was intentional. The applicant’s explanation, the wording of the question, prior disclosures, surrounding circumstances, subsequent corrections, and consistency of the applicant’s statements may all become important evidence.

2. Lack of Candor During a Background Investigation

Guideline E concerns are not limited to the information placed on a security questionnaire.

An applicant may also face allegations that he or she gave false, misleading, incomplete, or evasive information during an interview with an investigator, security official, adjudicator, employer, or other authorized government representative.

These cases can be especially difficult because investigators and adjudicators may compare statements made at different stages of the clearance process.

An inconsistency does not necessarily establish intentional dishonesty. Memory, misunderstanding, poorly phrased questions, passage of time, ambiguity, and differences in context can sometimes explain apparently inconsistent statements.

Nevertheless, unexplained inconsistencies can create significant credibility problems. A response to a Guideline E concern should therefore identify and reconcile material differences whenever possible rather than simply ignoring them.

Why Intent Matters in Falsification Cases

Intent is frequently one of the most important issues in a Guideline E falsification case.

If the government alleges a deliberate omission or false statement, an effective response should ordinarily address not merely whether the underlying information was incorrect, but why the incorrect answer was given.

Relevant evidence may include:

• what the applicant understood the question to mean;
• whether similar information was disclosed elsewhere;
• whether the applicant volunteered the information during an interview;
• whether the applicant attempted to correct the answer before being confronted;
• whether records available at the time were confusing or incomplete;
• how long ago the underlying event occurred;
• whether the applicant had difficulty remembering dates or details;
• whether the applicant sought guidance regarding how to answer the question; and
• whether the surrounding circumstances are consistent with intentional concealment.

A detailed explanation supported by documents is usually more persuasive than a conclusory statement that the applicant “did not intend to lie.”

Prompt Correction Is Important

SEAD 4 expressly recognizes mitigation when an individual makes prompt, good-faith efforts to correct an omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts.

Timing therefore matters. This cannot be overstated.

Someone who independently realizes an answer was incorrect and promptly contacts the appropriate security official may be in a materially different position from someone who admits the information only after investigators produce contradictory evidence.

Applicants who discover an error on a security form should carefully evaluate the appropriate reporting or correction process rather than simply waiting to see whether the issue is discovered.

Guideline E Can and Does Overlap With Other Adjudicative Guidelines

Another important feature of Guideline E is its potential overlap with other security concerns.

For example, alleged drug use may principally implicate Guideline H, while a failure to disclose the drug use on an SF-86 may independently create Guideline E concern.

Similarly:

• criminal conduct may implicate Guideline J while concealment of the conduct raises Guideline E;
• financial problems may raise Guideline F while false statements about those problems create Guideline E concerns;
• foreign contacts may implicate Guideline B while deliberately concealing them may raise Guideline E; and
• alcohol-related misconduct may implicate Guideline G while inaccurate statements regarding the events may generate an additional Personal Conduct allegation.

This distinction is important because resolving the underlying conduct does not necessarily resolve a separate allegation that the applicant was dishonest about it.

Guideline E Mitigating Conditions

SEAD 4 contains several circumstances that may mitigate Personal Conduct concerns.

Among them are situations in which:

• the individual promptly and in good faith corrected an omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted;
• a failure to cooperate or disclose information resulted substantially from advice by legal counsel or another professional responsible for advising the individual about the security process, followed by full cooperation once the requirement became clear;
• the conduct was minor, occurred long ago, was infrequent, or occurred under unusual circumstances and is unlikely to recur;
• the individual acknowledged the behavior and took counseling or other positive steps to address the circumstances contributing to it;
• the individual took steps to eliminate vulnerability to coercion, manipulation, or duress;
• the adverse information was unsubstantiated or came from a source of questionable reliability; or
• an association with persons involved in criminal activity was unwitting, has ended, or otherwise occurred under circumstances that do not raise doubts about the individual’s reliability, judgment, or willingness to follow rules.

Evidence That Can Help Mitigate a Guideline E Case

One of the most common mistakes in responding to a security clearance concern is submitting a lengthy explanation without supporting evidence.

Whenever possible, important factual statements should be corroborated with other evidence.. Depending on the allegations, useful evidence can include:

• contemporaneous emails and correspondence;
• personnel and employment records;
• SF-86 or prior security questionnaire submissions;
• investigative records;
• performance evaluations;
• awards and commendations;
• disciplinary records;
• training certificates;
• counseling or treatment documentation where relevant;
• records showing repayment or restitution;
• policies or instructions that clarify what the applicant was told;
• sworn declarations or affidavits;
• statements from witnesses with firsthand knowledge;
• character letters from supervisors and colleagues;
• evidence of successful subsequent employment;
• evidence of compliance with security requirements; and
• documentation showing corrective or rehabilitative measures.

The strongest evidence will depend on the particular allegation.

Common Mistakes in Guideline E Responses

Several recurring mistakes can make Personal Conduct cases more difficult when you respond to a Letter of Intent or Statement of Reasons.

Providing Only a General Denial

I don’t recommend general denials in security clearance responses. Every material allegation should generally be addressed specifically. We often see responses in cases that we have not handled that are very short or just state “deny” or “admit” without providing more information. These are generally not very helpful and can help to drag out the process.

Failing to Produce Supporting Evidence

A detailed narrative is important, but documentary evidence can substantially strengthen an individual’s case.

Ignoring Intent

In falsification cases, explaining what happened is not enough. The response should often explain why the evidence does or does not establish an intent to hide information.

Attacking Investigators or Former Employers

Challenging facts is far more effective than accusing or attacking an investigator or former employer. Often, attacking an investigator will hurt a case, n0t help it. Where a source is inaccurate or unreliable, explain why and present contradictory evidence.

Minimizing Clearly Established Conduct

Where misconduct did occur, acknowledging the conduct and demonstrating rehabilitation is often more effective than advancing an explanation inconsistent with objective records. Do not minimize misconduct that you will be admitting to. It is almost always not helpful.

Waiting Until an Appeal to Develop Evidence

Whenever possible, favorable evidence should be developed at the earliest meaningful stage of the adjudicative process. Oftentimes, waiting to include information until a final appeal can be too late. For example, some individuals seek to wait to provide additional information in Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals cases at the appeals stage (post-Administrative Judge). However, by the time you file with the DOHA Appeal Board, new evidence generally cannot be added.

Helpful Examples

Example 1: Workplace Misconduct and Terminations

Suppose an applicant receives a Guideline E allegation based on several former employers reporting repeated rule violations and terminations.

The response should examine each employment incident individually.

If one termination actually resulted from a reduction-in-force, another involved a disputed supervisor relationship, and only one involved substantiated misconduct, the evidence should make those distinctions clear.

Helpful documents might include personnel records, positive performance evaluations, emails, witness statements, grievance records, positive letters from former co-workers or supervisors and evidence showing several years of successful employment after the incidents.

The applicant should also address the government’s broader concern about whether the events demonstrate a continuing pattern of poor judgment.

Example 2: Alleged SF-86 Falsification

Assume an applicant failed to list an adverse employment event on a security questionnaire.

A strong response would examine the precise wording of the question, what the applicant understood at the time, whether the employment event actually fell within the scope of the question, what the applicant disclosed elsewhere, and whether the individual later volunteered or corrected the information.

Where applicable, contemporaneous documents can be critical in demonstrating that an omission resulted from confusion or mistake rather than an intent to conceal. It is also often the case that an individual who checked no in a box, discussed the underlying issue in the substantive comments on the SF-86.

Example 3: Misconduct Combined With a Candor Issue

Suppose an employee engaged in prohibited conduct, like the use of an illegal drug, but initially gave an incomplete explanation when questioned about it.

The government may raise both the original conduct under Guideline H and a separate Guideline E concern regarding candor.

The response should therefore address both issues. Even if the underlying misconduct can be mitigated because it was isolated and occurred years earlier, the applicant may still need to explain the later statement and demonstrate why it does not indicate continuing dishonesty or unreliability.

Example 4: False or Unreliable Allegations

Not every allegation contained in a clearance investigation is accurate.

Guideline E expressly permits consideration of whether adverse information is unsubstantiated or comes from a questionable source.

Where an allegation is false or exaggerated, it may be important to identify inconsistencies in the source’s account, contradictory documents, witnesses with firsthand knowledge, motives affecting the source’s reliability where legitimately supported, and objective records establishing what occurred.

The focus should remain on evidence rather than speculation about the source.

Reach out to a Security Clearance Lawyer if you Have Guideline E Issues

Guideline E is one of the broadest provisions of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines. It can encompass alleged dishonesty, lack of candor, rule violations, workplace misconduct, misuse of resources, questionable judgment, vulnerability to exploitation, and other conduct affecting an individual’s reliability or trustworthiness.

A Guideline E allegation, however, is not evaluated in isolation. Security clearance adjudicators consider the specific circumstances, the reliability of the evidence, the individual’s explanation, mitigating conditions, evidence of rehabilitation, the likelihood of recurrence, and the individual’s record as a whole.

For applicants and clearance holders facing a Letter of Intent, Statement of Reasons, proposed revocation, or other Guideline E concern, a comprehensive response supported by credible documentation can be critical. Berry & Berry, PLLC represents federal employees and government contractors in security clearance matters, including Guideline E Personal Conduct cases.

📞 Call us: (703) 668-0070
🌐 Visit: https://www.berrylegal.com