Quick Answer: What This Section Does

§ 147.7 (Guideline E) evaluates whether your conduct—especially your honesty, candor, and compliance with rules—shows that you can be trusted with classified information.

👉 In practice, this is one of the most important guidelines because it affects how every other issue in your case is interpreted.

Readers looking for a deeper, strategy-focused analysis can explore how adjudicators evaluate honesty, disclosure, and personal conduct issues in real cases in the Guideline E personal conduct breakdown.

What This Means in Practice

Most applicants think their clearance case turns on:

  • what they did

  • how serious it was

  • whether it can be explained

Guideline E shifts the focus.

It asks:

👉 “Can this person be trusted to tell the truth and follow rules?”

That question can override everything else.

Because even a minor issue can become serious if it is:

  • not disclosed

  • inconsistently explained

  • or handled poorly

And even a serious issue can be mitigated if the record shows:

👉 consistent, reliable candor

How This Guideline Is Actually Used

Guideline E is not just one guideline among many.

It is:

👉 the lens through which all other issues are evaluated

Adjudicators rely on your statements to understand:

  • what happened

  • when it happened

  • why it happened

If they cannot rely on those statements:

👉 they cannot rely on the rest of the record

That is why this guideline is often the deciding factor—even when it is not the original issue.

Full Text of § 147.7

§ 147.7 Guideline E – Personal conduct.

(a) The concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

  1. Refusal to undergo or cooperate with required security processing, including medical and psychological testing;
  2. Refusal to complete required security forms, releases, or provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials or other representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.(b)

(b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

  1. Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;
  2. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
  3. Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination;
  4. Personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase an individual’s vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duties, such as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail;
  5. A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency;
  6. Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

(c) Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

  1. The information was unsubstantiated or not pertinent to a determination of judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability;
  2. The falsification was an isolated incident, was not recent, and the individual has subsequently provided correct information voluntarily;
  3. The individual made prompt, good faith efforts to correct the falsification before being confronted with the facts;
  4. Omission of material facts was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel, and the previously omitted information was promptly and fully provided;
  5. The individual has taken positive steps to significantly reduce or eliminate vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress;
  6. A refusal to cooperate was based on advice from legal counsel or other officials that the individual was not required to comply with security processing requirements and, upon being made aware of the requirement, fully and truthfully provided the requested information;
  7. Association with persons involved in criminal activities has ceased.

How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process

Guideline E is part of the adjudicative framework used to evaluate eligibility under:

→ Adjudicative Guidelines

It is often raised during the investigative phase and formalized in a

→ Security Clearance Statement of Reasons

But in practice, it operates continuously.

Because every stage of the process depends on:

👉 what you say

👉 how you say it

👉 whether it remains consistent

Why This Matters for Your Case

This guideline reflects one of the most important realities in clearance cases:

👉 the system depends on your statements

Adjudicators were not present when events occurred.

They rely on:

  • your disclosures

  • investigator summaries

  • written explanations

If those sources conflict:

👉 the issue is no longer just the underlying conduct

It becomes:

👉 credibility

And credibility problems are extremely difficult to overcome.

Where Problems Typically Arise

Most Guideline E issues are not intentional.

They arise from:

  • incomplete disclosures

  • misunderstanding questions

  • trying to simplify or shorten answers

  • adding details later

From the applicant’s perspective:

👉 this feels like clarification

From the system’s perspective:

👉 it looks like inconsistency

This is where many cases begin to shift.

How This Guideline Interacts With Others

Guideline E rarely stands alone.

It often amplifies other concerns, such as:

Because once credibility is questioned:

👉 every issue becomes harder to mitigate

Related Statutes and Guidance

Return to the full statute list:

→ Security Clearance Statutes and Regulations

See how this is applied in real cases:

→ Guideline E – Personal Conduct (Full Breakdown)

Learn how to mitigate personal conduct concerns:

→ Security Clearance Mitigation Strategy

Explore the full system:

→ Security Clearance Insiders Resource Hub

What Actually Wins Clearance Cases

Most people read these rules looking for a clear answer.

They assume:

👉 “If I meet the standard, I should be approved.”

That’s not how this system works.

These regulations don’t decide your case.

👉 They’re used to justify the decision after it’s made.

What actually drives the outcome is:

  • how your record is written
  • how risk is framed under the guideline
  • whether the file supports approval

That’s why two people with similar facts can get different results.

👉 The difference isn’t the rule—it’s how the case is built under it.

If you want to understand how to actually win a clearance case, including how to structure mitigation and avoid credibility issues, read our guide on how to win a security clearance case using proven mitigation and record-control strategies.

Why Insight Into the System Matters

Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.

They are made by:

  • adjudicators
  • administrative judges
  • agency decision-makers
  • reviewers who rely on the written record

Understanding how these individuals evaluate risk, credibility, and mitigation is not theoretical—it is structural.

At National Security Law Firm, our security clearance lawyers include attorneys who have worked:

  • as administrative judges and adjudicators responsible for deciding clearance cases
  • inside federal agencies evaluating whether individuals should be approved or denied
  • within military legal systems handling sensitive national security matters
  • in roles directly applying the adjudicative guidelines to real-world cases

Our cases are not handled by a single attorney working in isolation.

They are reviewed through our internal Attorney Review Board, where multiple experienced attorneys analyze the record, test arguments, and refine strategy before submission.

This mirrors how the government evaluates cases—through layered review and institutional scrutiny.

Clients often come to us after receiving advice that focuses only on:

  • legal arguments
  • explanations of past conduct

But security clearance cases are not decided that way.

They are decided based on:

👉 how the record will be read, reused, and defended by decision-makers

That is the difference between a response that explains—and a record that supports approval.

You can read what clients say about their experience working with our team in our 4.9-star Google reviews, which reflect both outcomes and the level of strategic guidance we provide throughout the process.

Speak With a Security Clearance Lawyer Before Issues Escalate

The most important question is not:

👉 “Did I do something wrong?”

It is:

👉 “Will my record be trusted?”

We offer free, confidential consultations to help you:

  • understand how your disclosures are being evaluated

  • identify potential credibility risks

  • take steps to maintain consistency across your record

→ schedule a free consultation

The Record Controls the Case.

SECURITY CLEARANCE DENIED OR REVOKED

If you are appealing a security clearance determination, it is imperative that you obtain experienced legal representation. Doing so will provide you with the best opportunity to obtain or maintain your clearance.

Click Here For a No Obligation, Always Confidential Consultation