§ 147.6 Guideline D – Sexual Behavior

Quick Answer: What This Section Does

§ 147.6 (Guideline D) evaluates whether sexual behavior creates a security risk due to:

• criminal conduct

• lack of judgment

• vulnerability to coercion

• or underlying instability

👉 It is not about morality or personal preference—it is about whether the behavior creates risk in the record.

Readers looking for a deeper, strategy-focused analysis can explore how adjudicators evaluate sexual behavior concerns in real cases in the Guideline D sexual behavior breakdown.

---

What This Means in Practice

This is one of the most misunderstood guidelines.

Most people assume it is about:

• personal choices

• private conduct

• or moral judgment

It is not.

The regulation explicitly states:

👉 sexual orientation or preference cannot be used as a disqualifying factor

Instead, this guideline focuses on something much narrower:

👉 whether the behavior creates risk

That risk typically falls into one of four categories:

• criminal exposure

• coercion or blackmail potential

• loss of discretion

• underlying instability

This means the issue is not:

👉 what the behavior is

It is:

👉 what the behavior suggests about vulnerability and judgment

---

How This Guideline Is Actually Used

Guideline D is rarely applied on its own.

It is often evaluated alongside:

• Guideline J – Criminal Conduct

• Guideline I – Psychological Conditions

Because adjudicators are not isolating the behavior.

They are evaluating:

👉 how it fits into the broader record

For example:

• behavior that is private and controlled may not raise concerns

• the same behavior, if public or inconsistent, may raise judgment concerns

• the same behavior, if hidden, may raise coercion concerns

The issue is not the conduct alone.

👉 It is how that conduct appears in context.

---

Full Text of § 147.6

§ 147.6 Guideline D – Sexual behavior

(a) The concern. Sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, may subject the individual to coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion.

1 Sexual orientation or preference may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance.

(b) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

1. Sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted;
2. Compulsive or addictive sexual behavior when the person is unable to stop a pattern or self-destructive or high-risk behavior or that which is symptomatic of a personally disorder;
3. Sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress
4. Sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that which reflects lack of discretion or judgment.

(c) Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

1. The behavior occurred during or prior to adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;
2. The behavior was not recent and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;
3. There is no other evidence of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or emotional instability;
4. The behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress.

---

How This Section Fits Into the Clearance Process

Guideline D is part of the adjudicative framework used to evaluate eligibility under:

→ Adjudicative Guidelines

It is applied after the background investigation has documented:

• relevant conduct

• disclosures

• context and timing

• any related issues

and may be formally raised in a

→ Security Clearance Statement of Reasons

---

Why This Matters for Your Case

This guideline reflects a broader principle that applies across the clearance system:

👉 the government is not evaluating personal behavior

👉 it is evaluating risk created by that behavior

That risk is usually tied to:

• coercion (could this be used against you?)

• discretion (does this reflect poor judgment?)

• stability (does this indicate a pattern?)

This is why two individuals can have similar conduct but different outcomes.

Because adjudicators are evaluating:

👉 how the behavior appears in the record

---

Where Problems Typically Arise

Issues under this guideline often develop not from the behavior itself, but from:

• lack of disclosure

• inconsistent explanations

• public or high-risk context

• overlap with other concerns

For example:

• private behavior that is undisclosed may create coercion concerns

• inconsistent explanations may create credibility concerns

• behavior linked to other issues may expand into additional guidelines

This is where cases become more complex.

---

Related Statutes and Guidance

Return to the full statute list:

→ Security Clearance Statutes and Regulations

See how this is applied in real cases:

→ Guideline D – Sexual Behavior (Full Breakdown)

Learn how to mitigate related concerns:

→ Security Clearance Mitigation Strategy

Explore the full system:

→ Security Clearance Insiders Resource Hub

---

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:

👉 “Is this behavior allowed?”

It is:

👉 “How will this be interpreted in my record?”

We offer free, confidential consultations to help you:

• understand how this guideline may apply

• identify potential concerns early

• take steps to reduce risk before it expands

→ schedule a free consultation

---

The Record Controls the Case.