The 13 adjudicative guidelines in plain English

Every clearance decision in the federal system runs through the same thirteen guidelines. They're not secret, they're not subjective, and they're not a vibe check. They're written down, applied by a federal adjudicator, and reviewable by a hearing officer if the answer comes back wrong.

Most cleared candidates have never read them. The result is a folklore version of clearance criteria that drifts further from the regulation every year. Bankruptcy isn't an automatic disqualifier. Neither is dual citizenship. Smoking weed once in 2014 in a state where it was legal isn't an automatic anything either. The actual standard, in every guideline, is the whole-person concept: an adjudicator weighs the totality, applies the mitigating conditions explicitly listed in the rule, and decides on the balance.

This is the plain-English version of all thirteen, with the patterns that actually drive denials and the mitigations that actually work.

Where the rules come from

The current authority is SEAD 4 — the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, signed by the Director of National Intelligence as Security Executive Agent on December 10, 2016 and effective June 8, 2017. An older parallel codification of similar guidelines lives at 32 CFR Part 147; SEAD 4 is what current adjudicators apply.

Two structural points worth knowing before the list:

• Every guideline has the same three sections: the concern (why this matters for national security), disqualifying conditions (specific facts that may raise the concern), and mitigating conditions (specific facts that may resolve it).
• The whole-person concept is the override. Even if a disqualifying condition is met, the adjudicator weighs nine factors before reaching a decision: nature and seriousness, circumstances, frequency and recency, age and maturity at the time, voluntary participation, presence or absence of rehabilitation, motivation, potential for pressure or coercion, and likelihood of recurrence. Most denials are not about a single fact; they're about pattern, recency, or concealment.

The thirteen guidelines

Guideline A — Allegiance to the United States

The concern. Sympathy for, or membership in, organizations advocating overthrow of the U.S. government, or commission of acts in support of those organizations.

What actually trips this. Almost nothing, in practice. The guideline is narrow and the disqualifying conditions are about active participation in groups with a documented violent or seditious agenda. Holding unpopular political opinions is not, on its own, disqualifying. This guideline accounts for a tiny share of denials.

Guideline B — Foreign Influence

The concern. Foreign contacts and interests that could create a vulnerability to coercion or divided loyalties.

What actually trips this. Close, continuing contact with family or associates in countries that present elevated counterintelligence concern (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others identified in U.S. counterintelligence guidance). Financial interests held by close foreign relatives. Cohabitation with a foreign national.

What works as mitigation. Documented infrequency and lack of substantive content in the foreign contact. The contact's lack of association with a foreign government or intelligence service. A demonstrated history of placing U.S. interests first when the conflict has actually been tested. Disclosure under SEAD 3 reporting rules helps; concealment is a separate Guideline E concern on top of the original B concern.

Common myth. Having relatives in any foreign country is disqualifying. It isn't. Having relatives in adversarial countries with regular substantive contact may be, depending on the relationship and the work the candidate does.

Guideline C — Foreign Preference

The concern. Acting in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States.

What actually trips this. Active exercise of foreign citizenship: using a foreign passport, voting in foreign elections, performing foreign military service, accepting foreign government employment. Note the verb: exercising, not merely holding.

What works as mitigation. Documented commitment to renounce or surrender exercise of the foreign citizenship if it conflicts with U.S. interests. Long passage of time since the conduct. SEAD 4 explicitly states that dual citizenship alone "is not disqualifying without an objective showing of such conflict or attempt at concealment."

Common myth. Dual citizenship is an automatic disqualifier. It isn't, by itself, and SEAD 4 softened the prior absolute foreign-passport-surrender rule. Holding dual citizenship is a flag for further inquiry; exercising it in a way that conflicts with U.S. interests is the disqualifying conduct.

Guideline D — Sexual Behavior

The concern. Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, reflects a lack of judgment or discretion, or may subject the individual to undue influence, coercion, exploitation, or duress. SEAD 4 explicitly states that no adverse inference may be drawn solely from the sexual orientation of the individual.

What actually trips this. Conduct that is illegal, that the candidate has concealed from a spouse or employer in a way that creates blackmail leverage, or that demonstrates a documented pattern the individual is unable to stop.

What works as mitigation. The conduct was disclosed, occurred long ago and has not recurred, or is no longer subject to coercion (e.g., the spouse now knows). Lawful private adult conduct is generally not relevant on its own.

Common myth. Lifestyle questions on the SF-86 are about who you sleep with. They're not. They're about concealment and coercion potential.

Guideline E — Personal Conduct

The concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.

What actually trips this. Lying on the SF-86. Lying in a subject interview. Failing to self-report under SEAD 3. Deliberate omission of foreign contacts, financial issues, or prior conduct that would otherwise have been mitigable.

This is the guideline that catches more cleared candidates than any other, because it's the meta-guideline. A drug use issue covered by Guideline H, plus a lie about it on the SF-86, becomes a Guideline E denial even when the underlying conduct was minor.

What works as mitigation. Prompt, voluntary correction of the record before confronted with the discrepancy. The omission was minor and unrelated to a security determination. Truthful explanation in a subsequent interview.

Guideline F — Financial Considerations

The concern. Financial irresponsibility or inability to live within one's means raises the question of whether the individual is at risk of financial coercion or theft.

What actually trips this. Substantial unpaid debt, recent bankruptcy under questionable circumstances, gambling debts, tax delinquency, unexplained affluence (i.e., income that doesn't match the lifestyle).

What works as mitigation. Debt incurred from circumstances beyond the individual's control (medical event, job loss, divorce). Documented good-faith efforts to resolve the debt: not necessarily full repayment, but a credible plan and consistent action. A clean financial history before the precipitating event. Counseling from a credit counselor or financial advisor.

Common myth. Bankruptcy disqualifies you. It doesn't. SEAD 4 doesn't list bankruptcy itself as disqualifying; the mitigating conditions cover financial distress caused by circumstances beyond the individual's control (medical event, job loss, divorce, identity theft, predatory lending) and reward good-faith repayment. A medical bankruptcy followed by responsible recovery is mitigable. A pattern of running up debt and discharging it serially is not.

Guideline G — Alcohol Consumption

The concern. Excessive alcohol use can lead to questionable judgment, unreliability, and failure to control impulses, including impulses around classified information.

What actually trips this. A diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. Multiple alcohol-related arrests. Evidence of binge drinking that has affected work performance.

What works as mitigation. Time elapsed since the conduct without recurrence. Successful completion of treatment with a favorable prognosis. Active participation in a recovery program. Demonstrated change in lifestyle.

Guideline H — Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

The concern. Use of illegal drugs (federal definition) or misuse of legal substances raises the same judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness concerns as alcohol.

What actually trips this. Recent illegal drug use. Use while holding a clearance. Misuse of prescription medication. Failure of a drug test. Cultivation, sale, or distribution.

The marijuana wrinkle. Most state-legal marijuana use is still federally Schedule I and a Guideline H concern. As of April 2026, DOJ/DEA placed FDA-approved cannabinoid drug products and state-licensed medical marijuana into Schedule III; broader rescheduling is in administrative review and not finalized. The 2021 ODNI Security Executive Agent guidance (that past marijuana use is "relevant but not determinative") remains the controlling adjudicative memo. Recent use is the failure mode; older, infrequent use with a documented end is widely mitigated. The safe assumption for any cleared role is no marijuana use during the application and clearance process, and abstinence going forward.

What works as mitigation. A demonstrated intent not to use in the future, supported by a documented break in use. Successful treatment if there was a dependence diagnosis. The conduct was infrequent, occurred long ago, or happened under unusual circumstances.

Guideline I — Psychological Conditions

The concern. A mental, emotional, or personality condition that could impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.

What actually trips this. A diagnosed condition that is unmanaged or has demonstrably affected work, not the diagnosis itself.

What works as mitigation. Treatment, follow-through, a favorable prognosis from a qualified mental health professional. Most adjudicated cases under Guideline I involve someone who stopped treatment against medical advice, not someone in active management of a condition.

Common myth. Seeing a therapist disqualifies you. It does not. SEAD 4 paragraph 27 explicitly states: "no negative inference concerning the standards in this guideline may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling." The SF-86 (Section 21) further carves out counseling related to combat service, status as a first responder, sexual assault or domestic violence victimization, and marital issues, provided judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness aren't substantially affected. The intent is to assess function, not to penalize people for getting help.

Guideline J — Criminal Conduct

The concern. Criminal activity creates doubt about judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to comply with laws and regulations.

What actually trips this. A pattern of arrests or convictions. A single serious offense (felony, violence, fraud). Pending charges. Evidence of ongoing criminal conduct, even unprosecuted.

What works as mitigation. Time elapsed since the conduct without recurrence. The offense was minor, isolated, or occurred under unusual circumstances. Identification of the conduct as caused by something now resolved (a relationship, a substance issue with documented recovery). Acquittal on the merits.

Common myth. Old offenses are disqualifying forever. They're not. Time, rehabilitation, and absence of recurrence are explicitly listed mitigators.

Guideline K — Handling Protected Information

The concern. Mishandling classified or sensitive information; covered in detail in our infraction vs. violation post.

Short version. Single mishandling events are usually mitigable. Patterns are not. Deliberate disclosure to unauthorized parties is at the severe end. The mitigating side rewards prompt corrective action and responsiveness to counseling.

Guideline L — Outside Activities

The concern. Outside employment or other activities that could create a conflict of interest or risk of unauthorized disclosure.

What actually trips this. Consulting work for a foreign government or foreign-owned business. Outside activity that draws on classified information. Employment with a competitor in a way that creates an unmanaged conflict.

What works as mitigation. The activity has been disclosed and approved by the cognizant security officer. The activity has been terminated. There is no realistic conflict given the role.

Guideline M — Use of Information Technology

The concern. Misuse of information technology systems, particularly those holding classified or sensitive information.

What actually trips this. Unauthorized entry into a system. Unauthorized modification, destruction, or denial of access. Use of unauthorized devices on classified networks. Introduction of unapproved software. Concealing IT activity.

This guideline gets used in conjunction with Guideline K when a classified spill is involved. Plugging a personal USB drive into a classified system is a Guideline M issue and a Guideline K issue, and the adjudication considers both.

What works as mitigation. The conduct was unintentional and has not recurred. Prompt self-reporting. Successful completion of remedial training. The conduct was minor and the individual responded constructively to counseling.

The whole-person test, in practice

Reading the thirteen one at a time misses how adjudication actually works. A real review takes the candidate's whole record and runs it through the nine whole-person factors. A single Guideline F debt issue with a mitigating story is one outcome; the same debt issue plus a Guideline E concealment plus an unresolved Guideline G arrest is a denial under the totality, even if any one of the three would have been mitigable on its own.

Two practical implications:

• Self-disclosure compounds favorably. Reporting a Guideline F issue under SEAD 3 doesn't just resolve the F concern; it removes the Guideline E concealment overlay before it can attach.
• Concealment compounds adversely. A minor Guideline H issue from years ago, properly disclosed on the SF-86, is mitigable in almost every case. The same issue, omitted and discovered later, is a Guideline E denial in many cases. Guideline E is the hardest to mitigate because the conduct is the lying.

What this means at hiring time

Three things candidates underestimate:

• The guidelines are not a checklist of things you must not have done. They're a structured way to ask whether the totality of your record creates a security risk. A clean record on twelve guidelines and a single mitigated issue on the thirteenth is not a denial.
• The SF-86 is the most consequential document in the process. The guidelines work through it. Errors of memory are forgiven; errors of candor are not.
• The FSO and the adjudicator are not the same person. The FSO at the contractor sees your eligibility status and the company's incident record, and helps you prepare. The adjudicator at the Cognizant Security Agency holds the full investigative file and makes the call. They use the same rule, but the FSO's job is to surface the mitigations and the adjudicator's job is to weigh them.

What this looks like inside ClearMatch

The matcher does not read or score against the thirteen guidelines. We don't have access to DISS, we don't ask about adjudicative history on the profile, and we wouldn't use it for ranking if we did. The agent's job is to find roles where your clearance, agency history, and program experience fit. The adjudicative review is the FSO's and the CSA's, and they'll do it from DISS regardless of which platform you applied through.

Two practical takeaways:

• If a past issue under Guidelines F, H, or J is on your mind, the question to ask the FSO at offer time is "is this mitigable under the current rule?", not "should I apply at all?". Apply, get matched, and let the security review run on its own track.
• If you've never read SEAD 4 directly, the document is short and worth the hour. Knowing what the rule actually says is a stronger hand than the folklore version.

Sources: SEAD 4 — National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (2017), 32 CFR Part 147, SEAD 3 (Reporting Requirements), and current DCSA adjudicative guidance. Specific application varies by Cognizant Security Agency — consult your FSO for case-specific questions.