Imagine this: you’ve dedicated your career to serving your country, but now a deeply personal issue threatens to derail everything. Perhaps it’s a past indiscretion or private behavior you never thought would see the light of day. Yet here you are, worried sick that Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) concerns could cost you your security clearance – and with it, your job, income, and reputation. It’s an incredibly stressful and isolating position. You might be asking yourself: Is this the end of my career? Will I lose my clearance because of a mistake in my personal life? The anxiety can keep you up at night, imagining worst-case scenarios.

Take a deep breath. It doesn’t have to end this way. Guideline D issues can be overcome with the right strategy and evidence. Many people just like you have faced similar personal conduct concerns and still secured or retained their clearances – but it requires addressing the government’s fears head-on. At National Security Law Firm (NSLF), we help clients turn these kinds of cases around every day. We know what adjudicators need to see to be convinced that your past sexual behavior does not define your reliability today. Our mission is to step in, calm the storm, and help you prove that you’re worthy of the trust your position demands. By the end of this in-depth guide, you’ll understand exactly what Guideline D entails, how to mitigate those concerns, and how our experienced security clearance attorneys can help you solve this problem and achieve your dream outcome: keeping your clearance, your career, and your peace of mind.

What Is Guideline D (Sexual Behavior) and Why Does It Matter?

Guideline D is one of the 13 adjudicative guidelines used to determine whether someone is eligible for a security clearance. In simple terms, it covers sexual behavior that could reflect poorly on a person’s judgment, stability, or vulnerability to coercion. The official guideline puts it this way: Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, reflects a lack of judgment or discretion, or may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. In other words, the government isn’t interested in prying into your private life for no reason – the concern is only when your behavior might indicate a risk (like breaking laws or being blackmailed) or poor judgment that could carry over into how you handle sensitive information.

Important: Guideline D is not about policing morality or consensual adult relationships in general. In fact, decades ago the rules were updated to prevent unjust discrimination. No adverse inference can be made solely from sexual orientation or preferences. Consensual adult activities – even if unconventional (think consensual BDSM, swinging, or extramarital affairs) – are not automatically disqualifying unless they involve one of the red-flag factors (like illegality, lack of discretion, or coercion). For example, in 1992 the guidelines were revised to clarify that things like homosexuality, promiscuity, or fetishism by themselves should not bar someone from a clearance. So if you’re worried that simply having an unconventional personal life or a past mistake means you’re doomed, remember: it’s the security implications of the behavior that matter, not the behavior in a vacuum.

Why does the government care about sexual conduct at all? Several reasons:

  • Susceptibility to Coercion: If you have a secret sexual indiscretion that you desperately want to hide, an adversary could try to blackmail you into revealing classified info. The classic example is someone having an affair or engaging in illegal activity and not wanting it exposed – that secrecy is leverage a spy could exploit.

  • Judgment and Reliability: Certain behaviors might suggest you exercise poor judgment or lack self-control, which raises concerns about how responsibly you handle other aspects of your life (like safeguarding secrets). The clearance process is essentially a trust assessment; repeated reckless or compulsive conduct can make an adjudicator wonder if you’re equally careless with classified information.

  • Criminal or High-Risk Behavior: Obviously, anything illegal (e.g. hiring a prostitute where it’s against the law, sexual assault, child pornography) is a huge red flag. Even if you weren’t caught or prosecuted, criminal sexual conduct shows willingness to break rules – not a good look for someone entrusted with the nation’s secrets. Likewise, high-risk or self-destructive sexual behavior (for instance, participating in dangerous encounters or an uncontrolled sex addiction) can indicate instability.

It’s worth noting that Guideline D cases are relatively less common than issues like financial problems or drug use. But when they do arise, they tend to be very sensitive. Many people feel embarrassed or scared to even discuss these matters, which is why having an experienced attorney can be crucial – we handle these issues with professionalism, discretion, and empathy. Remember, the goal of the clearance process is not to punish your personal life; it’s to ensure no security vulnerabilities exist. Our job is to show that, despite any past lapses, you are stable, honest, and not a risk to national security going forward.

What Sexual Behaviors Can Raise Security Concerns?

Not every intimate escapade or personal mistake will threaten your clearance. Guideline D is triggered by specific types of conduct that hit those risk factors we mentioned. Here are some common examples of behaviors that could get you in trouble under Guideline D:

  • Sexual Behavior That’s Illegal: This is a big one. Any sexual behavior that violates the law can raise a concern, whether or not you were prosecuted for it. This includes obvious crimes like sexual assault or possession of child pornography, but also things like soliciting prostitution in a place it’s illegal, or getting caught in a public sexual act (indecent exposure). Even if charges were dropped or never filed, the clearance investigators will note the conduct itself. For instance, repeatedly hiring prostitutes while on overseas business trips definitely raises eyebrows – beyond the illegality, it could open you up to bribery or coercion, especially in a foreign country.

  • Compulsive or High-Risk Sexual Behavior: A pattern of reckless sexual behavior can be disqualifying. Think along the lines of a sex addiction that you cannot control, or behaviors that are escalating in risk (maybe meeting strangers constantly from online apps for risky encounters). If an adjudicator sees evidence that you engage in self-destructive sexual habits and “are unable to stop”, they worry that this reflects an underlying emotional or mental health issues. It’s not about judging the nature of the acts themselves; it’s the compulsiveness and risk that signal potential instability.

  • Behavior Vulnerable to Blackmail or Coercion: This is the classic “secret affair” scenario. If you’re involved in sexual behavior that you’re hiding – perhaps an extramarital affair, involvement in a fetish community you keep secret, or even something like fraternization that violates workplace rules – the concern is someone could threaten to expose you unless you do what they want. A notable example: cheating on your spouse with a co-worker. If it’s a secret, a malicious actor could use your infidelity to extort you. Guideline D explicitly flags sexual behavior “that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress” as a disqualifier. The same goes for things like engaging in sex with someone you shouldn’t (e.g. with a foreign national from a hostile country, which could also invoke Guideline B: Foreign Influence concerns).

  • Public or Highly Indiscreet Sexual Conduct: If your sexual behavior is very public, blatant, or shows extremely poor judgment, it can raise questions. An example would be having sex in a public place and getting caught, or posting sexually explicit material of yourself publicly online for attention. The guideline mentions “sexual behavior of a public nature or that which reflects lack of discretion or judgment” as a disqualifying condition. One real-world example: “massages with happy endings.” Seeking out illicit sexual services (especially in a way that leaves a paper trail or police record) shows questionable judgment. Another: regularly watching pornography at work or on government systems – while viewing legal adult material in private time isn’t a Guideline D issue per se, doing it on the job can violate rules and reflect poor judgment, triggering other guidelines (like Misuse of IT Systems under Guideline M, or Personal Conduct under Guideline E).

To paint a clearer picture, here are a few hypothetical scenarios (completely fictional, but realistic) that illustrate Guideline D issues:

  • Case of the Overseas “Adventure”: “John,” a defense contractor, takes a trip abroad and visits a brothel (where prostitution is illegal). He isn’t arrested, and he thinks no one will ever know. However, during his periodic reinvestigation, a background interviewer catches wind of rumors. John now faces a Guideline D concern for engaging in criminal sexual behavior. Beyond the act itself, investigators worry: could foreign intelligence have recorded or witnessed this, leaving John open to blackmail? John will need to show this was a one-time lapse in judgment, that he’s been law-abiding since, and that no one is extorting him over it.

  • Case of the Secret Affair: “Jane,” a cleared federal employee, had an affair with a colleague and kept it secret from her spouse. Although having an affair isn’t a crime, it does mean Jane had a big secret someone knew about. In fact, the colleague she had the affair with threatened to tell her husband when things went sour – a classic coercion scenario. Jane’s clearance investigators flagged Guideline D (and possibly Guideline E for personal conduct) because of the vulnerability to duress. To mitigate this, Jane might reveal the truth to her spouse (removing the blackmail power) and demonstrate that she’s taken responsibility and it won’t recur.

  • Case of the Reckless Web Habits: “Alex,” an intelligence analyst, isn’t involved in anything illegal or adulterous. But Alex has been spending a lot of time on adult webcam sites and casual encounter apps, engaging with strangers. In Alex’s periodic polygraph, the examiner asks questions that lead Alex to admit to this pattern. The adjudicators worry this could be a compulsive behavior that Alex can’t control, potentially clouding judgment or even exposing Alex to malware or scams. It’s not a typical Guideline D case of crime or blackmail, but it could be seen as high-risk sexual behavior if extreme enough. Alex might need to show that this habit is under control or has stopped.

As you can see, context matters. Guideline D issues often intersect with other guidelines or broader concerns. For instance, sexual misconduct in the workplace (like harassment) might actually be adjudicated under Guideline E: Personal Conduct rather than D. Sexual behavior involving foreign nationals might invoke Guideline B: Foreign Influence considerations. The key is that the adjudicators will look at the whole picture, and any pattern of deception or rule-breaking tied to the behavior can worsen the situation (for example, if you lie about a sexual incident during the clearance process, that lie becomes its own serious issue under Guideline E).

How do investigators find out about these private matters? There isn’t a direct question on the SF-86 security clearance application that says “Have you ever engaged in sexual behavior that could be an issue?” – nothing that blunt. However, these issues can surface indirectly in several ways.

  • You might have to list police records. If you were arrested or charged with any offenses (even if not convicted), that goes on your SF-86. So if an incident of indecent exposure or solicitation led to an arrest, it will come out.

  • Background investigators may interview people who know you. If, for example, a bitter ex-spouse or former friend mentions a potentially disqualifying secret (like “Oh, he used to spend all his time at strip clubs and got in trouble”), it can lead to further inquiry.

  • Workplace records or incidents can surface. If you were disciplined at work for something like using a government computer to view porn, or if you had a sexual harassment complaint filed against you, those might be documented and discovered during your clearance investigation.

  • In polygraph examinations, anything can come up. Agencies that require polys (e.g. CIA, NSA) often ask broad questions that could lead an examinee to disclose risky personal behavior. People sometimes volunteer information about affairs or sexual conduct out of fear the polygraph will “detect” it anyway. Also, lifestyle polys may ask about being susceptible to blackmail, which could prompt discussion of secret behavior.

  • Even something like a messy divorce could raise flags if, say, the court records or rumors indicate the marriage ended due to your misconduct (infidelity, solicitation, etc.).

The bottom line: don’t assume it will stay hidden. If you have a potential Guideline D issue, it’s far better to be upfront and prepared to mitigate it than to hope no one finds out. Surprises are your enemy in the clearance process. Fortunately, mitigation is often possible – and that’s what we’ll focus on next.

How to Mitigate Guideline D Concerns and Save Your Clearance

Facing a Guideline D concern can feel overwhelming, but here’s the good news: a clearance denial is not automatic, even if you have a red flag in your past. The adjudicative process gives you a chance to explain and mitigate the concern. Mitigating means showing that either the behavior is no longer problematic or that you have counter-evidence proving you’re still trustworthy despite it. The security guidelines themselves list several “conditions that could mitigate security concerns” under Guideline D. Let’s break those down into practical terms:

  • It Was a Long Time Ago (and You Were Young): Time can heal a lot in the eyes of an adjudicator. If the questionable behavior occurred in your youth or many years in the past, and there’s no sign of it continuing, that’s a strong mitigating factor. For example, say you did something foolish as a teenager (perhaps caught in a sexual situation that drew police attention), but now you’re 30 with a clean record since – the guidelines specifically note that youthful indiscretions that haven’t recurred in adulthood can be mitigated. Similarly, if the behavior happened so long ago or so infrequently that it’s clearly not part of your lifestyle anymore, you can argue it “does not cast doubt on [your] current reliability or good judgment.” In plain English: you grew up, you moved on, and the person who made that mistake isn’t who you are now.

  • Isolated Incident Unlikely to Recur: Perhaps the behavior was triggered by unique circumstances – a one-off situation that is highly unlikely to ever happen again. The guidelines acknowledge this as mitigation, too. Maybe you went through a rough patch (e.g. during a divorce or after a trauma) and engaged in inappropriate conduct once. If you can show it was a one-time lapse in judgment under unusual stress, and not a pattern, adjudicators may consider it mitigated. The key is convincing them it won’t happen again. Evidence of changed circumstances is useful here (e.g., “That happened when I was drinking heavily five years ago; I’ve been sober since 2019” – which might invoke mitigation under Alcohol guidelines as well).

  • No Risk of Blackmail Now: One of the smartest things you can do to mitigate a Guideline D issue is eliminate the secrecy that made it dangerous. If the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion or duress, the concern diminishes greatly. How do you achieve that? By ensuring that anyone who could be used against you already knows or that you’re no longer in a position to be threatened. For example, if your spouse knowing about a past affair was the only thing keeping you vulnerable, coming clean to your spouse (and perhaps a counselor) can remove that vulnerability. Or if a foreign entity knew of your behavior, perhaps you reported it to your security officer first. Essentially, no secret = no leverage over you. Adjudicators love to see that you have been proactive and honest. In practice, showing mitigation here might involve a signed statement like: “Yes, I did X in the past. My family is aware of it, my employer knows the situation, and I have nothing to hide – so I cannot be blackmailed over it.”

  • Private, Consensual, and Discreet: If your sexual behavior was strictly personal, consensual, and handled with discretion, emphasize that. This addresses the concern about lack of judgment or public scandal. For instance, perhaps you were involved in a non-traditional consensual relationship – if it was legal, among adults, and you kept it private, then the security risk is low. The guidelines explicitly list “the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet” as a mitigating condition. That tells the adjudicator: this person isn’t flaunting bad judgment publicly; their personal life, however unusual, isn’t hurting anyone or exposing them to undue attention. Be prepared to clarify how you maintained discretion (e.g. no explicit social media posts, no impact on workplace, etc.).

  • Rehabilitation and Professional Help: If the issue involved something that might signal a deeper problem (like a compulsion or addiction), showing that you’ve actively addressed it is critical. The updated Guideline D specifically notes that if an individual has successfully completed a treatment program, or is currently in treatment with good compliance and a favorable prognosis from a mental health professional, that is mitigating. In plain terms: you recognized the problem, got help, and experts say you’re unlikely to slip up again. For example, if you struggled with sex addiction or impulse control, evidence like a letter from a certified therapist stating you’ve been in counseling for a year and have made significant progress can be a game-changer. Adjudicators give weight to professional evaluations. If you haven’t sought help yet but clearly have an issue, doing so before your hearing or response is a smart move – it shows initiative and responsibility. Even relatively small steps can help. In one case, an applicant who had solicited prostitutes showed mitigation by voluntarily taking an online course about the negative impacts of prostitution, demonstrating a commitment to change and understand the behavior’s implications. The adjudicator noted that this extra effort “provided additional mitigation” and might have been the piece of evidence that pushed the decision in his favor.

In practice, when you’re responding to a Statement of Reasons (SOR) or Letter of Interrogatory citing Guideline D, you’ll want to cover as many of these mitigation points as possible in your response. Think of it like building a multi-layered defense: Yes, I did X, but it was years ago; it was an isolated incident; I’ve since gotten counseling; I’ve been totally honest about it; and here’s proof I’m not that person anymore. The more factors you can show, the better.

Let’s revisit our hypothetical clients to see how they might mitigate:

  • John (illegal overseas behavior) would gather evidence that this was a one-time slip. He might include a personal statement of remorse, show that it happened 5+ years ago with no repeat offenses, and perhaps evidence of participating in an ethics or counseling program afterward (if applicable). If John self-reported the incident to security officials (instead of them discovering it), that voluntary disclosure itself is a strong mitigating element in the whole-person assessment. It shows honesty.

  • Jane (secret affair) would focus on the coercion angle. By telling her husband (assuming she chooses to and it’s safe to do so), she eliminates the blackmail risk. She could provide a letter from a marriage counselor or a statement signed by both her and her spouse acknowledging the issue and affirming it’s resolved. Jane might also highlight her otherwise unblemished record and work performance to show this lapse in judgment didn’t affect her duties.

  • Alex (reckless web habits) might decide to proactively seek counseling for impulse control or online addiction if those behaviors were truly compulsive. Bringing a therapist’s evaluation to the table – perhaps one that says Alex has gained control over the behavior – would directly address the concern. Alex could also point out that these activities never crossed into illegal territory and have since been dialed back or stopped. If no one besides Alex even knew about these habits (i.e., no coercion risk), emphasizing the private and consensual nature helps too.

Finally, it’s crucial to remember the “whole-person concept.” Adjudicators will weigh your mitigating evidence against the concern by looking at your life as a whole. Your job is to stack up the positives to outweigh the negatives. Stable job history, character references, commendations from work, a clean criminal record aside from this issue – all of that helps paint a picture of someone who can be trusted. In Guideline D cases, often character letters and expert opinions carry a lot of weight, because you’re essentially vouching for your own reliability. For example, a letter from a psychologist or counselor who treated you might say you have no diagnosable personality disorder and you’ve shown good judgment in dealing with any issues. Or a statement from a supervisor could attest to your professionalism and that your personal life never affected your work. Even friends and family can provide affidavits that your character is solid despite the lapse. And if applicable, showing that you’ve taken steps so “the individual cannot be coerced or blackmailed over the sexual behavior in question” (perhaps by demonstrating the secret is out and resolved) is powerful.

In our experience, a successful mitigation package for Guideline D might include:

  • A detailed personal affidavit from you, owning up to the issue, showing insight into why it won’t recur, and walking through the mitigating factors in your case.

  • Supporting documents, such as proof of attending therapy or completion of a program (if relevant), or evidence of any legal matter being resolved.

  • Third-party statements, like letters from counselors (with your permission), character references, or even a spouse’s letter if it helps to confirm there’s no duress potential.

  • If the issue overlaps with something like mental health, sometimes a professional evaluation can be obtained to certify you’re psychologically fit (for example, if there was any question of a disorder, get an evaluation saying you’re fine).

  • Any additional evidence that shows you’re a responsible person (awards, evaluations from jobs, etc.).

Putting this all together in a clear, organized response is critical because you may only get one shot at it. In most clearance processes, if you receive a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing Guideline D, you’ll have the opportunity to write a formal response and request a hearing (if you want one). This is where having an attorney is extremely valuable.  An experienced security clearance lawyer will know exactly how to craft that narrative and what evidence carries the most weight. Our team often helps clients collect the right documentation (for example, working with psychologists who understand clearance standards, or advising on how to get a police report or court record that shows the outcome of an incident) and present it in a way that connects the dots for the adjudicator.

Tip: Always be truthful and forthcoming in the clearance process. Trying to cover up a Guideline D issue is usually worse than the issue itself. If you lie on your SF-86 or in an interview about it, you’ll trigger Guideline E (Personal Conduct – falsification) which is very hard to mitigate later. Many people have kept their clearances despite sexual behavior concerns, but few keep their clearances after a proven lie. So even if it’s embarrassing, it’s better to disclose and mitigate than to deceive. We at NSLF can help you figure out how to disclose and frame the issue properly, with minimal invasion of your privacy beyond what’s necessary.

In summary, mitigating Guideline D is about showing you’re a trustworthy adult who learned from past mistakes. By addressing when it happened, how it happened, why it’s not going to happen again, and why no one can use it against you, you can often alleviate the government’s concerns and keep your clearance. Next, we’ll discuss how we handle these cases at NSLF and what it might cost to get professional help (spoiler: we offer flat fees and financing to make it as stress-free as possible).

How Much Does It Cost?

At National Security Law Firm, we believe in flat, transparent pricing:

  • SOR/LOI Mitigation Statement: $3,500

  • Full Hearing Representation (if needed): $7,500

  • (You get a $3,000 credit toward your hearing if we wrote your mitigation statement)

  • SF-86 Review: $950

Can’t pay all at once? No problem.

We offer legal financing through Pay Later by Affirm—spread payments over 3 to 24 months, with no credit score impact for checking eligibility.

Why Choose NSLF?

Read our 4.9-star reviews on Google—clients call us “life-saving,” “flawless,” and “the best decision I ever made.”

Here’s why we lead the field in clearance defense:

  • Former JAG officers, federal prosecutors, and clearance adjudicators on staff

  • Decades of government insider experience—we know how they think

  • Weekly Attorney Review Board meetings to plan strategy on complex cases

  • National practice—we represent clients in every federal agency and all 50 states

  • Located in Washington, D.C., the center of security clearance law

  • We hold or have held security clearances ourselves

National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You.

Additional Resources

Want to learn more before you call?

Visit our Security Clearance Practice Area Page to explore:

  • Top mistakes that destroy clearance cases

  • How to respond to SORs and LOIs

  • Timeline and cost of the clearance process

  • Defense strategies for each guideline

  • Whether you really need an attorney

Your Career Deserves a Real Defense

👉 Book your free consultation now
It’s quick, easy, and confidential. We’ll review your situation and tell you exactly what to do next.

No guesswork. No fluff. Just a battle-tested legal strategy built to win.

This nightmare isn’t over—but the comeback starts now.
Let’s fight.