Quick Answer: What This Section Does
§ 147.11 (Guideline I) evaluates whether emotional, mental, or personality conditions affect an individual’s judgment, reliability, or stability in a way that could impact their ability to safeguard classified information.
It focuses on:
- psychological conditions and diagnoses
- behavioral stability
- treatment and compliance
- impact on judgment and decision-making
- risk of recurrence
👉 In practice, this guideline is not about whether you have received mental health treatment—it is about whether your condition creates risk.
Readers looking for a deeper, strategy-focused analysis can explore how adjudicators evaluate these issues in real cases in the Guideline I psychological conditions breakdown.
What This Means in Practice
Most applicants assume mental health concerns are judged based on:
- whether they have a diagnosis
- whether they have received treatment
- whether they have seen a therapist
That is not how this guideline operates.
Adjudicators are not asking:
👉 “Do you have a mental health condition?”
They are asking:
👉 “Does this condition affect your judgment, reliability, or stability?”
That distinction matters.
Because the concern is not treatment.
It is whether a condition:
- impairs decision-making
- creates instability in behavior
- affects reliability
- increases risk of poor judgment
This framework is explained more broadly in the security clearance adjudication process and how the government evaluates risk across cases.
How This Guideline Is Actually Used
Guideline I is evaluated through functioning, stability, and control—not diagnosis alone.
Adjudicators look for:
- current behavior and functioning
- consistency over time
- whether treatment is followed
- whether symptoms are controlled
- whether the condition affects reliability
The issue is not:
👉 whether a diagnosis exists
It is:
👉 whether the condition creates current risk
These concerns often emerge during the background investigation phase, which is explained in the security clearance investigation process and how personal history is evaluated.
Full Text of § 147.11
§ 147.11 Guideline I—Emotional, mental, and personality disorders.
(a) The concern: Emotional, mental, and personality disorders can cause a significant deficit in an individual’s psychological, social and occupation functioning. These disorders are of security concern because they may indicate a defect in judgment, reliability, or stability. A credentialed mental health professional (e.g., clinical psychologist or psychiatrist), employed by, acceptable to or approved by the government, should be utilized in evaluating potentially disqualifying and mitigating information fully and properly, and particularly for consultation with the individual’s mental health care provider.
(b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
- An opinion by a credentialed mental health professional that the individual has a condition or treatment that may indicate a defect in judgment, reliability, or stability;
- Information that suggests that an individual has failed to follow appropriate medical advice relating to treatment of a condition, e.g., failure to take prescribed medication;
- A pattern of high-risk, irresponsible, aggressive, anti-social or emotionally unstable behavior;
- Information that suggests that the individual’s current behavior indicates a defect in his or her judgment or reliability.
(c) Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
- There is no indication of a current problem;
- Recent opinion by a credentialed mental health professional that an individual’s previous emotional, mental, or personality disorder is cured, under control or in remission and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation;
- The past emotional instability was a temporary condition (e.g., one caused by a death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been resolved, and the individual is no longer emotionally unstable.
How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process
Guideline I is part of the broader framework used to evaluate eligibility under the security clearance adjudicative guidelines that govern all federal clearance decisions.
It is typically triggered when:
- mental health treatment is disclosed on the SF-86
- behavioral patterns are identified during investigation
- evaluations are conducted by government-approved professionals
- inconsistencies or concerns arise in interviews
These issues may later appear in a security clearance Statement of Reasons that outlines concerns about judgment, reliability, or stability.
Why This Matters for Your Case
This guideline reflects a critical principle:
👉 mental health treatment is not the issue—functional stability is
Two individuals can have similar diagnoses:
- one is approved
- one is denied
Because adjudicators are evaluating:
- whether the condition is controlled
- whether treatment is followed
- whether behavior is stable
- whether the record reflects reliability
Applicants who understand how to present these factors effectively can learn more in the security clearance mitigation strategy guide that explains how to build a defensible record.
Where Psychological Condition Cases Often Go Wrong
Most Guideline I cases become difficult when:
- treatment is inconsistent or discontinued
- conditions are minimized or denied
- behavior reflects instability
- medical opinions are unfavorable
- mitigation is not documented
From the applicant’s perspective:
👉 “I’m getting help—that should be enough”
From the system’s perspective:
👉 “Is the condition controlled and unlikely to create risk?”
How This Guideline Interacts With Others
Psychological concerns often overlap with:
- honesty and disclosure issues under Guideline E personal conduct and credibility concerns
- alcohol-related concerns under Guideline G alcohol consumption and impaired judgment
- criminal conduct issues under Guideline J criminal conduct and behavioral risk
Once multiple guidelines are implicated:
👉 the case becomes significantly more complex
Related Statutes and Guidance
Readers can review the full regulatory framework in the Security Clearance Statutes and Regulations resource hub, or explore the broader system in the Security Clearance Lawyers resource center that explains the process from application through adjudication.
What Actually Wins Clearance Cases
Most people read these rules looking for a clear answer.
They assume:
👉 “If I meet the standard, I should be approved.”
That’s not how this system works.
These regulations don’t decide your case.
👉 They’re used to justify the decision after it’s made.
What actually drives the outcome is:
- how your record is written
- how risk is framed under the guideline
- whether the file supports approval
That’s why two people with similar facts can get different results.
👉 The difference isn’t the rule—it’s how the case is built under it.
If you want to understand how to actually win a clearance case, including how to structure mitigation and avoid credibility issues, read our guide on how to win a security clearance case using proven mitigation and record-control strategies.
Why Insight Into the System Matters
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.
They are made by:
- adjudicators
- administrative judges
- agency decision-makers
- reviewers who rely on the written record
Understanding how these individuals evaluate risk, credibility, and mitigation is not theoretical—it is structural.
At National Security Law Firm, our security clearance lawyers include attorneys who have worked:
- as administrative judges and adjudicators responsible for deciding clearance cases
- inside federal agencies evaluating whether individuals should be approved or denied
- within military legal systems handling sensitive national security matters
- in roles directly applying the adjudicative guidelines to real-world cases
Our cases are not handled by a single attorney working in isolation.
They are reviewed through our internal Attorney Review Board, where multiple experienced attorneys analyze the record, test arguments, and refine strategy before submission.
This mirrors how the government evaluates cases—through layered review and institutional scrutiny.
Clients often come to us after receiving advice that focuses only on:
- legal arguments
- explanations of past conduct
But security clearance cases are not decided that way.
They are decided based on:
👉 how the record will be read, reused, and defended by decision-makers
That is the difference between a response that explains—and a record that supports approval.
You can read what clients say about their experience working with our team in our 4.9-star Google reviews, which reflect both outcomes and the level of strategic guidance we provide throughout the process.
Speak With a Security Clearance Lawyer Before Issues Escalate
The most important question is not:
👉 “Do I have a mental health condition?”
It is:
👉 “Does my record show stability, control, and reliability?”
The Record Controls the Case.
SECURITY CLEARANCE DENIED OR REVOKED
If you are appealing a security clearance determination, it is imperative that you obtain experienced legal representation. Doing so will provide you with the best opportunity to obtain or maintain your clearance.
Click Here For a No Obligation, Always Confidential Consultation