The Pentagon’s Ethics Rulebook

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Department of Defense operates on a simple principle: public service is a public trust. With millions of military and civilian personnel and a budget representing a significant chunk of federal spending, the Pentagon has built one of the most comprehensive ethics frameworks in government.

These are the guardrails that ensure every decision serves the public interest, upholds the Constitution, and stays free from private influence. From gift rules to post-employment restrictions, here’s how the system works.

The Foundation: Core Values and Getting Help

Public Service as Public Trust

The entire DoD ethics system rests on Executive Order 12674, which requires all employees to place loyalty to the Constitution above private gain. The Joint Ethics Regulation (JER) translates this into ten core values that guide decision-making:

Honesty means being truthful and straightforward. Lies destroy credibility and undermine public confidence.

Integrity requires acting with honor and performing duties impartially to avoid conflicts of interest.

Loyalty creates a bond of allegiance to the nation while balancing competing interests.

Accountability means accepting responsibility for decisions and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

Fairness demands impartial and equitable treatment in all official matters.

Caring shows compassion for others’ wellbeing.

Respect treats all people with dignity.

Promise Keeping fulfills commitments and obligations.

Responsible Citizenship honors both public and private duties.

Pursuit of Excellence strives to provide the highest quality public service.

The 14 Principles: Your Ethical Checklist

These core values translate into 14 practical principles that serve as a common-sense test for any situation:

Do:

• Place loyalty to the Constitution above private gain
• Give honest effort in performing your duties
• Act impartially toward all groups and organizations
• Protect and conserve federal property for authorized uses only
• Report waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to proper authorities
• Fulfill citizen obligations, including paying all taxes
• Comply with equal opportunity laws

Don’t:

• Use public office for private gain
• Hold financial interests that conflict with your duties
• Use nonpublic government information for private benefit
• Accept gifts from prohibited sources or because of your position
• Make unauthorized commitments that bind the government
• Create the appearance of violating laws or ethical standards
• Engage in outside employment that conflicts with official duties

How the Rules Work: The Regulatory Hierarchy

DoD ethics rules operate on multiple levels:

Federal criminal law sits at the top, covering bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201), illegal compensation (18 U.S.C. § 203), and financial conflicts (18 U.S.C. § 208).

Executive branch regulations from the Office of Government Ethics apply to all agencies, found in 5 C.F.R. Part 2635.

DoD-specific rules include the DoD Supplemental Regulation, DoD Directive 5500.07, and the comprehensive Joint Ethics Regulation.

For military members, the JER isn’t just guidance—it’s a punitive regulation. Violations can result in action under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Your Safety Net: Ethics Counselors

The DoD recognizes these rules are complex. That’s why it maintains a robust support system with ethics counselors—typically attorneys in legal offices—throughout the department.

The Standards of Conduct Office serves the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff, reachable at [email protected] or 703-695-3422. Most personnel work with local ethics officials whose contact information is available on the SOCO website.

Here’s the key: if you make full and honest disclosure to your ethics counselor and act in good faith on their advice, you’re protected from disciplinary action. This “safe harbor” policy acknowledges that well-intentioned people can make mistakes with complex rules. It shifts responsibility from requiring perfect knowledge to requiring the integrity to ask for help.

Gift Rules: When You Can and Can’t Accept

Gift rules prevent the reality or appearance that government actions can be influenced by personal benefits to employees.

The Basic Prohibition

DoD employees cannot solicit or accept gifts given either because of their official position or from a “prohibited source.”

Prohibited sources include any person, company, or organization that:

• Seeks official action from DoD
• Does business or seeks business with DoD
• Conducts activities regulated by DoD
• Has interests substantially affected by the employee’s duties
• Is an organization where most members fall into the above categories

This covers virtually all DoD contractors.

Gifts include anything of monetary value: tangible items, gratuities, favors, discounts, entertainment, hospitality, loans, services, training, transportation, and meals.

What Doesn’t Count as a Gift

Some items are excluded from the gift definition entirely:

Modest refreshments like coffee, donuts, and soft drinks not served as part of a meal

Items of little intrinsic value such as greeting cards, plaques, certificates, and trophies intended for presentation

Widely available benefits including commercial discounts and military discounts available to all service members

Prizes from contests open to the general public

Paid-for items bought by the government or for which the employee pays full market value

When You Can Accept Gifts from Outside Sources

Even prohibited source gifts may be acceptable under specific exceptions:

The $20/$50 Rule

The most common exception allows unsolicited gifts worth $20 or less per occasion, with a $50 annual limit from any single source. This never applies to cash or investments.

For example: You could accept a $15 book from a contractor in January and another $15 book in June, but not a third $15 book that year, as it would exceed the $50 limit. You can’t “buy down” a $25 gift by paying $5.

Personal Relationships

Gifts are acceptable when circumstances clearly show they’re motivated by genuine personal relationships—family ties or long-standing friendships—rather than official position. Key factors include the relationship’s history and whether the friend pays personally rather than getting company reimbursement.

Widely Attended Gatherings

Free attendance at certain events is permitted with advance written supervisor authorization determining that attendance serves the agency’s interest. The event must be “widely attended” with diverse viewpoints and opportunities to exchange ideas.

Foreign Government Gifts

DoD personnel may generally accept gifts from foreign officials to avoid diplomatic offense. However, gifts exceeding the “minimal value” set by the General Services Administration (currently $480, adjusted every three years) become government property and must be turned over. Gifts at or below minimal value may be kept.

Disposing of Improper Gifts

If you receive an unacceptable gift, don’t use it. The proper response is declining or returning it. If returning isn’t practical, pay the donor fair market value. Tangible items under $100 may be destroyed. Perishable items like fruit baskets may be donated to charity, shared in the office, or destroyed with supervisor or ethics counselor approval.

Gifts Between Employees

The rules strictly regulate workplace gift-giving to prevent influence within the chain of command.

General Rule

Employees cannot give gifts to official superiors, and superiors cannot accept gifts from subordinates or anyone receiving less pay.

Holiday and Birthday Exceptions

Supervisors may accept non-cash gifts from subordinates worth $10 or less for traditional gift-giving occasions. Employees can share food and refreshments in the office.

Special Occasion Exceptions

For significant personal events like marriage, birth, adoption, or occasions ending the superior-subordinate relationship (retirement, resignation, transfer), the rules change:

• Subordinates may give appropriate gifts to superiors
• Voluntary contributions may be solicited at $10 per person maximum
• Total group gift value cannot exceed $480

The Appearance Standard

The regulations include an overarching “appearance standard” often more restrictive than specific dollar limits. Employees should decline gifts, even if technically permissible, if a reasonable person would question their integrity or impartiality.

Consider “Patty,” a DoD employee who regularly accepted small breakfasts from defense contractors. While each breakfast might have met the $20 exception, the pattern was deemed improper. Frequency and context matter as much as individual value.

Many ethics officials advise extreme caution or even personally declining all contractor gifts to maintain public trust.

Gift Rules Quick Reference

Conflicts of Interest: Public Duty vs. Private Gain

Conflicts arise when personal interests could compromise or appear to compromise official judgment. The DoD uses a two-tier system: criminal law focused on direct financial gain, and administrative rules focused on appearance.

The Criminal Standard

18 U.S.C. § 208 creates a bright-line prohibition. Federal employees cannot participate “personally and substantially” in any “particular matter” with a “direct and predictable” effect on their financial interests.

Personal and substantial participation means direct involvement in decision-making, approvals, recommendations, or directing subordinates who are directly involved.

Particular matters are focused proceedings like contracts, grants, investigations, or lawsuits—not broad policy discussions.

Direct and predictable effects require real, not speculative, causal links between the official matter and financial interest. The potential gain or loss size is irrelevant.

Whose Interests Count

The law covers not just the employee’s interests but also those of:

• Their spouse
• Minor children
• General partners
• Organizations where they serve as officer, director, employee, or trustee
• Organizations with which they’re negotiating future employment

The De Minimis Exception

Certain financial interests are considered too small to corrupt judgment. For example, employees may participate in matters affecting companies if their financial interest (like publicly traded stock) falls below specific thresholds: currently $15,000 for individual company stocks and $50,000 for sector mutual funds.

Employees must monitor values to ensure they don’t rise above thresholds during participation.

The Appearance Standard

Beyond criminal law lies a broader administrative standard requiring employees to avoid participating in matters where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. This applies when matters likely affect household members’ financial interests or involve “covered relationships.”

Covered relationships include:

• Business, contractual, or financial relationships beyond routine consumer transactions
• Household members or relatives with close personal relationships
• Organizations where the employee’s spouse, parent, or dependent child serves as officer, director, employee, or contractor
• Organizations where the employee is an active participant
• Organizations where the employee served in the past year

This two-tier system is crucial. An employee could comply with criminal law but still need disqualification under the impartiality rule.

For instance, participating in a contract award to a company employing your adult son wouldn’t violate criminal law (adult children’s interests aren’t imputed) but clearly creates an appearance of partiality under “covered relationships.” A reasonable person could question your objectivity, requiring recusal.

Related Prohibitions

Several other rules reinforce the barrier between public duty and private gain:

Bribery and graft make it criminal to seek, accept, or agree to accept anything valuable in return for being influenced in official acts.

Salary supplementation prohibits accepting compensation from non-government sources for performing official duties, preventing divided loyalties.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts exist at institutional levels too. An Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) occurs when companies, due to other activities or relationships, cannot render impartial advice, have impaired objectivity, or possess unfair competitive advantages.

OCIs typically fall into three categories:

Biased ground rules happen when contractors help write technical requirements for future acquisitions, giving them unfair advantages by shaping requirements to favor their capabilities.

Impaired objectivity occurs when contractors evaluate their own products or competitors’ products, compromising objectivity due to vested interests.

Unequal access to information gives contractors providing government support access to proprietary or sensitive information from other companies, creating unfair competitive advantages.

The government must identify and mitigate OCIs through competition exclusions or internal firewalls. The recent “Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act” signals continued Congressional and DoD priority for this area.

Using Position and Government Resources Properly

Every DoD employee must act as a responsible steward of public resources, including their official position, time, and government information.

Misuse of Position

The core rule: employees cannot use public office for private gain or for the benefit of friends, relatives, or affiliated non-governmental organizations.

Specific Prohibitions

Endorsements are forbidden. DoD officials cannot use their position, title, or authority to endorse non-federal entities, products, services, or enterprises—including non-profits supporting the DoD mission.

Letters of recommendation may be written personally, but using official titles and stationery is strictly limited. It’s generally permissible only when responding to requests based on personal knowledge of character or abilities gained during federal employment, often only for federal employment applications.

Military title use by retirees and reservists follows specific rules for personal capacity use in commercial enterprises or publications. Disclaimers are often required stating that DoD doesn’t endorse the activity.

Government Property and Resources

All employees must protect and conserve government property, using it only for official or authorized purposes.

Government property includes obvious items like computers and vehicles, plus office supplies, telephones, email systems, government-leased real estate, and intangible interests purchased with government funds.

Theft and destruction of government property can lead to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 or UCMJ Article 108 for military members, with severe penalties including imprisonment and dishonorable discharge.

Communication Systems

DoD authorizes “limited personal use” of government communication systems like phones, email, and internet. This recognizes employees may need brief personal contacts during work.

Such use must be reasonable in duration and frequency, not adversely affect official duties, not overburden systems, and not incur significant additional government costs.

Permitted examples: Briefly calling home about a sick child, scheduling doctor appointments, or sending quick emails about home repairs.

Prohibited examples: Conducting private business, engaging in political activity, or spending hours on personal web surfing.

Official Time and Nonpublic Information

Official time must be used honestly to perform duties. Supervisors cannot encourage, direct, or request subordinates to use official time for personal tasks like picking up dry cleaning, typing personal letters, or running errands.

Nonpublic information cannot be used to further private financial interests. Employees are strictly forbidden from using “insider information”—government information not available to the public—for personal benefit or others’ benefit.

The detailed nature of these rules, addressing seemingly minor infractions like supervisors asking subordinates to type personal letters, reveals deeper institutional concerns. The DoD recognizes a “slippery slope” where tolerating small abuses can corrode entire offices’ ethical culture.

Such actions aren’t just about misusing government resources—they abuse supervisory authority. This breeds resentment, undermines legitimacy, and signals that rules aren’t serious. The regulations maintain superior-subordinate relationship integrity and foster cultures of fairness, respect, and discipline essential for mission effectiveness.

They’re designed to prevent at the earliest stage inappropriate relationship-building that outside entities might attempt, such as training that advised contractors to show up at federal offices with popcorn to “become best friends” with employees.

Outside Employment: Rules for Side Jobs

Many military members and civilian employees want outside employment for extra income, pursuing passions, or preparing for future careers. While generally permitted, strict rules ensure primary loyalty remains with government duties.

General Rule: Permissive with Key Limits

Executive branch employees, including all DoD personnel, may participate in outside activities and hold outside jobs, provided activities don’t conflict with official duties. Activities conflict if prohibited by statute or regulation, or if they’d require disqualification from matters so central to job performance that work ability would be materially impaired.

Prior Approval Requirements

Getting permission before starting outside jobs is often critical.

Financial disclosure filers (those filing OGE Form 450 or 278) must obtain prior written supervisor approval before engaging in business activities or compensated employment with “prohibited sources”—which includes all DoD contractors.

Command-specific rules may require all personnel, regardless of filer status, to receive command approval for any outside employment. Always consult your chain of command and local ethics official first.

Prohibited Outside Activities

Certain activities are strictly forbidden:

Interference with official duties means outside jobs cannot interfere with performance or military readiness. Jobs that are too physically demanding, have inflexible hours conflicting with duty schedules, or are located too far from duty stations may be denied.

Representation back to government is prohibited by federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205). Employees cannot act as agents or attorneys for outside employers in any matter before federal courts or agencies. Simply put: you can’t be paid by private companies to represent their interests back to the U.S. government.

Appearance of impropriety bars jobs that would cause reasonable people to question impartiality. For example, a government employee testing new Army computer systems shouldn’t accept weekend jobs with vendors whose computers they test.

Double-dipping in federal jobs is generally prohibited for active-duty military due to their 24/7, on-call commitment nature.

Teaching, Speaking, and Writing

Employees may accept compensation for teaching, speaking, or writing in personal capacities, but only under specific conditions:

• Activities must not relate to official duties
• Work must be done on personal time using no government resources
• If official titles are used biographically, clear disclaimers must state that views expressed are personal and don’t represent DoD or U.S. Government positions

The “relatedness” test is strict. A DoD ethics attorney couldn’t accept $1,500 to teach federal ethics to defense contractors because the subject directly links to official duties.

For active-duty military, ethics rules layer with commander discretion always guided by mission primacy and unit readiness. Activities permissible under ethics regulations could still be denied if perceived to negatively impact duty performance, deployment ability, or training requirements.

Approval criteria extend beyond pure ethics into military life realities. As Military OneSource states, commanders must ensure work doesn’t “interfere with military duties” or “impact safety of those in the military community.”

This reality reflects informal service member advice: approval often depends on specific jobs and unit operational tempo. An infantry soldier in a high training tempo unit is far less likely to get approval than a medic in a stateside sustainment unit.

This demonstrates that for military personnel, ethics analysis is only the first step. The second, often decisive step is practical assessment by the chain of command, adding command prerogative layers not found in civilian sectors and highlighting military service’s unique nature as a 24/7 commitment.

Political Activities and the Hatch Act

Citizens’ rights to participate in politics are cornerstones of American democracy. For federal employees and military members, this right balances against the government’s compelling interest in maintaining non-partisan, professional civil service and politically neutral military. Political activity rules are complex and differ significantly by individual status.

The Hatch Act for Civilians

The Hatch Act of 1939 governs most federal civilian employees’ political activity. Its purpose: ensure federal programs are administered non-partisanly, protect employees from political workplace coercion, and ensure advancement based on merit, not political affiliation.

Key prohibitions apply to ALL DoD civilian employees 24/7:

• Cannot use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect election results
• Cannot knowingly solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (nearly absolute fundraising ban)
• Cannot be candidates for public office in partisan elections
• Cannot solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency

Additionally, all civilians are prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in federal buildings, wearing official uniforms, or using government vehicles. This extends to sending partisan emails or social media posting from workplaces, even using personal devices during lunch breaks.

“Less Restricted” vs. “Further Restricted” Civilians

The Hatch Act divides civilian employees into two categories with different permitted activity levels.

“Less Restricted” employees comprise the majority of federal workforce, including most DoD civilians (e.g., GS-15 and below). When off-duty and away from workplaces, these employees MAY:

• Volunteer for partisan political campaigns
• Make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
• Distribute campaign literature
• Join, hold office in, and actively participate in political parties or clubs

“Further Restricted” employees include career Senior Executive Service members, administrative law judges, and employees of certain intelligence and national security agencies (NSA, DIA). These employees MAY NOT take active parts in partisan political management or campaigns, prohibiting them from activities listed above for “Less Restricted” employees. Their participation generally limits to expressing personal opinions, making financial contributions, and attending political events as spectators.

Military Members’ Rules

To preserve the critical appearance of a military loyal to the Constitution rather than political parties, active-duty military members face the most stringent political activity restrictions under DoD Directive 1344.10.

Military Members MAY (when off-duty and not in uniform):

• Register to vote and vote
• Express personal opinions on candidates and issues, but not as Armed Forces representatives
• Attend political meetings or rallies as spectators
• Join political clubs (but not serve in leadership positions)
• Place bumper stickers on private vehicles

Military Members MAY NOT:

• Participate in partisan political fundraising, management, or campaigns
• Speak at partisan political gatherings or march in partisan parades
• Run for or hold partisan political offices
• Use official authority or influence to interfere with elections or solicit votes
• Display large political signs, posters, or banners at on-base residences (including privatized housing)

Social Media Rules

Social media has created new and often confusing political activity landscapes. The rules are nuanced:

Expressing opinions: All personnel may generally use personal social media accounts to express personal political views. They may “follow,” “friend,” or “like” political parties or candidates for partisan office.

Fundraising is prohibited: No employee—civilian or military—may use social media to solicit, accept, or receive political contributions. This means employees cannot post links to campaign donation pages or “share,” “like,” or “retweet” posts from campaigns asking for money.

“In concert” activity: The key distinction hinges on acting “in concert” with political campaigns or parties. “Less Restricted” civilians are permitted to act in concert, while “Further Restricted” civilians and all military members are not.

This distinction is the primary mechanism for balancing individual political expression rights with government impartiality needs. The government isn’t policing personal thought or belief—it’s regulating action. The line is drawn where personal expression becomes active participation in partisan political enterprises.

Social media rules are the clearest modern illustration of this principle. While anyone can have opinions (e.g., “following” candidates), actively amplifying campaign messages is seen as participating in campaigns. Therefore, military members and “Further Restricted” civilians may not “share” or “retweet” posts from partisan campaign official accounts, as this is deemed acting in concert with campaigns.

Political Activity Rules Summary

The Revolving Door: Post-Government Employment Rules

Personnel transitions from government to private sector, often called the “revolving door,” face intense public interest and strict regulation. Rules prevent former officials from unfairly profiting from public service or using government connections to influence official actions for new employers. This framework is notoriously complex, creating significant risks for former employees and hiring companies.

While Still a DoD Employee: Job Seeking Rules

Restrictions begin when employees start looking for new jobs, not after leaving.

Procurement Integrity Act and Recusal

The law is unequivocal: once employees begin “seeking employment” with prospective employers, they’re legally required to disqualify themselves from participating in any official “particular matter” that could directly and predictably affect that company’s financial interests.

“Seeking employment” is broadly defined, triggered by sending resumes, discussing potential employment, or responding to unsolicited offers with anything other than immediate rejection.

Written Disqualification

For many personnel, particularly those in procurement, this disqualification must be written and filed with supervisors and relevant contracting officers or source selection authorities.

A Cautionary Tale

Consequences for violating these rules can be severe. In a high-profile case, Darleen Druyun, a senior Air Force procurement executive, was sentenced to nine months in prison for holding illegal job negotiations with Boeing while in a position to influence contracts awarded to the company. She admitted showing bias toward Boeing in exchange for high-paying executive jobs for herself and family members.

This case serves as a stark warning of criminal liability attached to these rules.

After Leaving: Post-Government Employment Restrictions

The primary criminal statute governing former federal employees’ activities is 18 U.S.C. § 207. It imposes several “cooling-off” periods and bans varying in scope and duration depending on employee seniority and government work nature.

These rules primarily restrict “representational” activities—communicating with or appearing before government with intent to influence—on behalf of others. They generally don’t prohibit “behind-the-scenes” work at new companies, though lines can be blurry.

The Lifetime Ban on “Switching Sides”

Former employees are permanently banned from making communications to or appearances before any federal agency or court, on behalf of new employers, with intent to influence decisions on the very same “particular matter involving specific parties” they worked on “personally and substantially” as government employees.

For example, a contracting officer who awarded a specific contract to Company A can never represent Company B (or even Company A) back to the government regarding that same contract.

The Two-Year Ban

For two years after leaving government, former employees are banned from the same representational activities on any particular matter involving specific parties they know or should know was under their “official responsibility” during their final service year. This applies even if employees didn’t work on matters personally.

For example, division chiefs are responsible for all contracts handled by subordinates. For two years after leaving, they’d be barred from representing companies back to government on any of those contracts, even ones they never personally reviewed.

The One-Year “Cooling-Off” Period for Senior Officials

This broader but shorter ban applies only to former “senior employees” (defined by specific high pay rates, including general and flag officers and Senior Executive Service members). For one year after leaving, these former senior officials are banned from communicating with or appearing before their former agencies on any matter with intent to influence official action. This ban applies regardless of whether they ever worked on or had responsibility for matters.

Section 1045 Restrictions

A law passed in 2017 added another restriction layer for departing senior DoD officials and flag/general officers. It prohibits them from engaging in “lobbying activities” with respect to DoD matters for one- or two-year periods after leaving government service.

Practical Implications and Getting Opinions

The post-government employment framework is so complex that both government and private industry struggle with consistent interpretation and enforcement. A Government Accountability Office report found that defense contractors had significant difficulty accurately identifying and tracking their former DoD officials subject to these restrictions.

This complexity led to calls for improved transparency and harmonized guidance, including formal Congressional reviews assessed by the National Academy of Public Administration.

This underscores the critical importance for departing DoD employees to seek formal, written post-government employment ethics opinions from ethics counselors before separating. These opinions provide tailored advice on which specific restrictions apply to them and their future plans.

DoD is required to maintain a central database of these opinions in the After Government Employment Advice Repository (AGEAR) to help ensure departmental consistency. These robust advisory systems directly respond to the reality that the revolving door isn’t a settled issue with simple rules, but an active and challenging ethics law area where rule intricacy poses significant barriers to the very compliance they’re meant to ensure.

Post-Government Employment Restrictions Summary

The Pentagon’s ethics framework reflects the reality that public trust is both the foundation of effective government and remarkably fragile. These rules aren’t just legal requirements—they’re the institutional immune system that protects democratic governance from the corrupting influence of private interests.

For DoD personnel, compliance isn’t just about avoiding violations. It’s about upholding the sacred trust that the American people place in those who serve. When in doubt, the guidance is simple: ask your ethics counselor. That’s what they’re there for.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.