The 13 adjudicative guidelines in plain English

SEAD 4 sets the common criteria for federal national-security eligibility determinations. Its thirteen guidelines address trustworthiness, reliability, judgment, and the ability to protect information. They apply to initial and continued eligibility for classified access and to eligibility for sensitive positions.

The guidelines require judgment about the facts of each case. They are not a numerical score or a list that predicts an outcome from one personal detail. Bankruptcy, dual citizenship, a past offense, or seeking mental-health care does not by itself tell you how a case will be decided.

Where the rules come from

Security Executive Agent Directive 4 was signed December 10, 2016, and took effect June 8, 2017. Use that document for the current guidelines.

Each guideline states the concern, conditions that could raise a concern and may be disqualifying, and conditions that could mitigate it. The summaries below explain those categories; they do not include every condition or substitute for the official text.

The whole-person concept requires consideration of the complete, reliable record. It is not an override that guarantees approval whenever a mitigating fact exists. SEAD 4 directs that doubts be resolved in favor of national security and makes clear that a single serious concern can support an unfavorable determination.

The thirteen guidelines

Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States

The concern is conduct that calls into question a person's allegiance and willingness to protect national-security information. Conditions include involvement in or support for sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition, and specified associations with people or groups pursuing unlawful action against the United States or others' constitutional rights.

The guideline is broader than membership in a violent organization. It does not make an unpopular political opinion, by itself, a disqualifying condition.

Potential mitigation includes not knowing an organization's unlawful aims and severing ties after learning them, lawful humanitarian involvement, or circumstances and elapsed time that make recurrence unlikely.

Guideline B: Foreign Influence

Foreign contacts or interests raise concern when they create divided allegiance or a heightened risk of manipulation, pressure, coercion, or exploitation. Relevant circumstances can include personal relationships, foreign business or property interests, and failures to make required disclosures.

A foreign relative or housemate is not an automatic disqualifier. The relationship, activities, country context, and potential conflict matter. Shared living arrangements can raise concern regardless of citizenship if they create the specified risk.

Potential mitigation includes relationships unlikely to create a conflict, deep and longstanding U.S. ties that support resolving a conflict in favor of U.S. interests, casual and infrequent contact, and compliance with reporting requirements. No country's “ally” label makes every relationship automatically acceptable.

Guideline C: Foreign Preference

This guideline addresses foreign involvement that conflicts with U.S. national interests or is concealed. SEAD 4 expressly states that dual citizenship alone is not disqualifying without an objective showing of conflict or concealment; it applies the same principle to exercising foreign citizenship rights.

Conditions that may raise concern include acquiring another citizenship, failing to disclose a foreign passport when required, failing to use a U.S. passport to enter or leave the United States, certain foreign government or military activities, and using foreign citizenship to protect financial interests in violation of U.S. law. Those conditions are assessed with the guideline's concern and mitigating factors.

Do not reduce the rule to “using any foreign passport means denial” or “you must surrender your foreign passport.” DCSA's passport guidance ended routine contractor retention or destruction of foreign passports as a mitigation measure and reiterates reporting and U.S.-entry/exit requirements.

Potential mitigation includes the absence of a conflict with U.S. interests, citizenship based on parentage or birth without evidence of preference, and activities authorized under the relevant rules.

Guideline D: Sexual Behavior

The concern is sexual behavior that is criminal, shows poor judgment or discretion, or creates vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or duress. SEAD 4 prohibits an adverse inference based solely on sexual orientation.

Relevant conditions include criminal behavior, a pattern of compulsive or high-risk behavior the person cannot stop, and conduct creating coercion risk. Potential mitigation includes elapsed time without recurrence, removal of the coercion risk, and strictly private, consensual, discreet behavior. The standard does not justify assuming that any particular orientation or lawful relationship creates a security risk.

Guideline E: Personal Conduct

Questionable judgment, dishonesty, lack of candor, and unwillingness to follow rules can raise concerns under this guideline. Deliberate omission or falsification in a security questionnaire, interview, or other security processing can create an issue separate from the underlying conduct.

Potential mitigation includes a prompt, good-faith correction before confrontation, circumstances showing an error was minor and unrelated to a material security issue, and credible evidence that the concern has been resolved. A correction does not guarantee that a deliberate false statement will be disregarded.

Answer the actual question and reporting period accurately. If you discover an error, ask how to correct it through the authorized process.

Guideline F: Financial Considerations

The concern includes inability or unwillingness to meet financial obligations, irresponsible financial behavior, and circumstances that can create vulnerability to exploitation. The guideline also covers tax failures, deceptive financial practices, gambling-related problems, and unexplained affluence.

Financial hardship is evaluated in context. For hardship largely outside the person's control, the mitigating condition also asks whether the person acted responsibly under the circumstances. A job loss or medical emergency alone does not resolve every concern.

Other potential mitigation includes documented good-faith efforts to resolve debts, compliance with tax arrangements, credible evidence disputing a debt, and counseling with signs that the problem is under control. Bankruptcy is not an automatic disqualifier, and repayment of every dollar is not the only possible mitigation. Conversely, no particular repayment plan guarantees approval.

Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption

Alcohol-related incidents and impaired judgment can raise concerns with or without a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. Relevant conditions include incidents at work or away from work, habitual or binge drinking to impairment, and failure to follow treatment or court requirements.

Potential mitigation includes circumstances making recurrence unlikely, acknowledging the problem and taking action, and satisfactory treatment progress or completion with the recommended changes in consumption or abstinence. The focus is the evidence of reliability and sustained change, not a requirement that everyone who has consumed alcohol needs treatment.

Guideline H: Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

The guideline covers illegal controlled-substance use, misuse of prescription or nonprescription drugs, and other substance misuse. Relevant conditions include illegal possession or distribution, a positive illegal-drug test, illegal use while granted classified access or holding a sensitive position, and intent to continue misuse.

Potential mitigation includes infrequent or distant conduct unlikely to recur, an established pattern of abstinence with supporting actions, and successful completion of prescribed treatment without recurrence.

Marijuana policy requires particular care. State authorization and federal drug scheduling do not, by themselves, establish that a use is acceptable under personnel-security or agency employment rules. ODNI's December 2021 marijuana guidance explains that past use is relevant but not automatically determinative and directs applicants to refrain from future marijuana use after the national-security vetting process begins. For subsequent legal developments, consult DEA's current marijuana notices and current agency instructions. A scheduling change is not a clearance approval.

Report what the current forms and agency instructions require. Do not infer an acceptable waiting period or guaranteed outcome from a general article.

Guideline I: Psychological Conditions

Certain conditions or behavior may impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. SEAD 4 states that a formal diagnosis is not required for a concern, and that a negative inference must not be drawn solely from mental-health counseling.

Potentially relevant information includes behavior raising the specified concerns, an appropriate professional opinion, inpatient hospitalization, and failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan for a condition that may impair reliability. These are matters for evaluation, not automatic denial rules.

Potential mitigation includes consistent treatment compliance, a favorable professional prognosis, a condition that is controlled or in remission, and no indication of a current problem. Seeking care can be part of addressing a concern. Read the actual questionnaire questions rather than relying on an informal list of counseling “exemptions,” and use a qualified professional for treatment decisions.

Guideline J: Criminal Conduct

Criminal conduct can raise questions about judgment and willingness to follow laws. The guideline includes patterns of minor offenses and reliable evidence of conduct even when there was no charge, prosecution, or conviction. An arrest alone is not the same as proof that the conduct occurred.

Potential mitigation includes substantial time without recurrence, unusual circumstances unlikely to repeat, no reliable evidence of the alleged offense, and successful rehabilitation. Evidence can include restitution, compliance with probation or parole, and constructive employment or community activity. An old offense is not automatically disqualifying forever, and the absence of a conviction does not automatically resolve a supported concern.

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

This covers classified information, other sensitive government information, and proprietary information. Concerns include unauthorized disclosure, storage or handling on unauthorized equipment, access beyond need-to-know, and persistent failures to follow protection rules.

Potential mitigation includes infrequent conduct unlikely to recur, a favorable response to remedial training, inadequate instructions or training, and an inadvertent event that was promptly reported, involved no evidence of compromise, and did not suggest a pattern.

Neither “one incident is always fine” nor “a pattern can never be mitigated” is the rule. See the infraction and violation guide for the distinction between incident handling and an eligibility decision.

Guideline L: Outside Activities

Certain outside employment or activities can conflict with security responsibilities and increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure. The guideline identifies work or service for foreign governments, foreign entities or interests, and organizations or people involved in analysis, discussion, or publication concerning intelligence, defense, foreign affairs, or protected technology. It also covers failure to make required disclosures.

The category can include paid or volunteer activity. It is not simply a ban on having a second job or working for a competitor.

Potential mitigation includes a security or counterintelligence office's evaluation finding no relevant conflict, or ending the activity after being notified of the conflict. Follow required review and reporting procedures before assuming an activity is acceptable.

Guideline M: Use of Information Technology

Unauthorized system access, manipulation or destruction of data, handling protected information on unauthorized systems, and prohibited hardware or software changes can raise concern. The guideline applies beyond classified networks.

Potential mitigation includes conduct unlikely to recur, certain minor misuse solely for organizational efficiency, inadvertent conduct followed by prompt correction and notification, and inadequate training or unclear instructions. These conditions are evaluated in context; they do not authorize bypassing IT rules.

How the whole-person review works

SEAD 4 directs adjudicators to consider the nature and seriousness of conduct, circumstances, frequency and recency, age and maturity, voluntary participation, rehabilitation, motivation, potential for coercion, and likelihood of recurrence.

A record can raise concerns under several guidelines. Honest reporting may help demonstrate reliability, but it does not automatically resolve an underlying financial, drug, or handling concern. Concealment can add a separate issue. The authorized adjudicative agency makes the final determination; an FSO can support processing and explain requirements but cannot promise the result.

Review or appeal procedures depend on the applicable agency and process. A blog summary cannot determine whether a particular adverse decision is wrong or predict what a reviewer will do.

What this means for candidates using ClearMatch

ClearMatch matches reported qualifications to jobs. It does not access government personnel-security records, score applicants against SEAD 4, or decide national-security eligibility.

Keep classified information and detailed adjudicative history out of your recruiting profile. Follow your security office's reporting instructions when an event occurs; do not postpone a current reporting obligation until a future offer. For questions about a past issue during new processing, use the gaining organization's approved security channel.

The official SEAD 4 text, including its appendices, is the source for the full conditions and statutory provisions. It is a better reference than a prediction based on another person's clearance story.