# Conduct Question **URL:** \ **Category:** SECURITY CLEARANCE Q&A\ **Created:** [May 12, 2025, 7:47pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658 "2025-05-12T19:47:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![blueclams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@blueclams](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/blueclams)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2025, 7:47pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/1 "2025-05-12T19:47:22Z")
One of the questions on the eQIP (I think that’s the one) asks: “For this employment, in the last 7 years have you received a written warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace, such as a violation of security policy?” This person had a written warning for PERFORMANCE (i.e. not able to perform their job), but not for misconduct. They responded with “NO”, since theirs was about performance and not misconduct. To me, that doesn’t sound like stretching the truth - when someone asked me if that was the right answer, I agreed, but I’d like to get someone’s take on it. ---
**Author:** ![clearedrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@clearedrob](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/clearedrob)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2025, 10:34pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/2 "2025-05-12T22:34:12Z")
Watch the Grammer on that form, it stinks! You (as well as most others) are reading it wrong. It’s not AND logic. It’s Or logic. Read it this way. You do need to list that warning: …in the last 7 years have you “received a written warning,” or, “been officially reprimanded,” or, “been suspended,” or, “been disciplined for misconduct?” ---
**Author:** ![clearedrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@clearedrob](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/clearedrob)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2025, 9:45pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/4 "2025-05-13T21:45:01Z")
Please see the previous guidance from @Marko. It is on point. I would follow that. > [@Received Discipline or Warning](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/received-discipline-or-warning/1800): > > Under the employment section, there’s a question that asks whether I received a written warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace, such as a violation of security policy? Is this asking whether I have received a written warning before fired/suspended? Please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![wonkytimes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ac91a4/32.png) [@wonkytimes](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/wonkytimes)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2025, 8:06pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/5 "2025-05-14T20:06:07Z")
Clearedrob is correct. I also thought the same thing but after calling my SO, any warning must be documented (as trivial as that sounds). It’s a pathetically worded question. They make the call as far as what trivial is - which is fully fair. ---
**Author:** ![Weeble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7cd45c/32.png) [@Weeble](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Weeble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2025, 1:34pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/6 "2025-05-15T13:34:05Z")
The form want’s to know about misconduct. It is intentionally trying to be vague so that you can list things that may or may not be relevant. If your are a doctor surgeon and warned or reprimanded about your unsteady hand and therefore poor performance during surgery, which could lead you to be moved to a non surgery job, this isn’t misconduct. It’s not having the skill set to perform the job you are in, for whatever reason. Maybe a librarian who loses their job because they can’t read is another good example. ---
**Author:** ![Amberbunny2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Amberbunny2](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/u/Amberbunny2)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2025, 1:55pm UTC](https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/conduct-question/20658/7 "2025-05-18T13:55:09Z")
Bottom line as I often say…over report vice under report. If you claim no writeups…but your personnel file has even 1…you arent truthful. I’ve seen countless invedtigators in our SCIF office reviewing personnel files. And several times discovering write ups. It doesn’t make you look good lying, or saying “no” because you disagree with the writeup. Fully disclose your issues. Even unfair ones.