Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty or unwillingness to comply with regulations can raise questions about an applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified national security information (CNSI). Any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process is of particular interest.

The following actions may result in unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing: Refusal or failure without reasonable cause to undergo/cooperate with security processing (e.g., meeting for a Subject Interview, signing forms or releases, cooperating with a medical or psychological evaluation); Refusal to provide truthful answers in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

The Personal Conduct adjudicative guideline covers unreliable or untrustworthy behavior not considered under other guidelines, or which falls below the threshold for action under any other single guideline. It provides a means for adjudicators to consider a pattern of unreliable and untrustworthy behavior that may encompass multiple guidelines. Importantly, the Personal Conduct guideline also covers vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or duress. Protection of classified information requires compliance with a complex set of rules and regulations. Willingness and ability to comply with rules and regulations is, therefore, an important qualification for access to classified information.

Any conduct that indicates disrespect for rules and regulations can be a security concern under Personal Conduct as well as several other guidelines. Honesty and integrity are other important qualifications. Many people during the course of their lives are beset by problems or stressors that tempt them to engage in improper or illegal behavior. The ability to weather these situations without engaging in improper or illegal activity depends, in large part, upon a person’s basic character and integrity. These and other types of conduct may raise questions about a subject’s judgment, trustworthiness or reliability, but may not be disqualifying by themselves. They may, however, contribute to an adverse adjudicative decision if they are part of a pattern of undesirable behavior that casts doubt on the subject’s willingness or ability to safeguard classified information.