No.

A psychiatric diagnosis alone does not determine psychological suitability.

Applicants should be evaluated based on:

• Current symptom severity

• Functional impairment

• Treatment compliance

• Stability over time

• Insight

• Judgment

• Ability to tolerate occupational stress

• Psychological testing

• Occupational risk

Many applicants with depression, anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, or other diagnoses may be suitable if they demonstrate sustained stability and appropriate treatment.

A history of suicidal ideation requires careful clinical assessment but does not automatically warrant a Not Suitable recommendation.

Consider:

• Recency

• Frequency

• Severity

• Presence of plan or intent

• Triggering events

• Current risk

• Treatment received

• Demonstrated stability

• Occupational stress exposure

Recent or chronic suicidal ideation generally warrants substantially greater concern than isolated remote episodes.

Past suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) should be evaluated within the context of:

• Age at occurrence

• Number of incidents

• Lethality

• Motivation

• Treatment received

• Current coping skills

• Time since last event

• Evidence of sustained recovery

Historical episodes followed by years of stability should be weighed differently than recent or recurrent behavior.

Current functioning is one of the strongest predictors of occupational readiness.

Evidence supporting stability includes:

• Consistent employment

• Healthy relationships

• Appropriate coping skills

• Medication compliance

• Successful completion of treatment

• Stable psychological testing

• Absence of recent crises

• Good insight

Current stability should always be balanced against the severity and recency of historical concerns.

Treatment history is an important indicator of prognosis.

Clinicians should evaluate:

• Engagement in treatment

• Medication compliance

• Therapy participation

• Response to treatment

• Reason treatment ended

• Follow-up care

• Insight into symptoms

Untreated or poorly managed symptoms generally increase occupational risk.

Professional treatment carries greater clinical weight than reliance solely on family support, faith, or self-management.

Minimization, omissions, or inconsistencies should be considered clinically significant.

Examples include:

• Failure to disclose hospitalizations

• Denying suicidal ideation contradicted by records

• Omitting treatment

• Downplaying symptoms

• Inconsistent explanations

These behaviors may raise concerns regarding:

• Insight

• Judgment

• Reliability

• Integrity

Objective records should generally carry greater weight than self-report.

Trauma history alone does not determine suitability.

Consider:

• Current PTSD symptoms

• Functional impairment

• Treatment

• Emotional regulation

• Triggers

• Occupational relevance

Particular attention should be paid when occupational duties are likely to expose the applicant to trauma similar to prior experiences.

Current psychotic symptoms—including hallucinations, delusions, or significant thought disturbance—represent serious clinical concerns.

Evaluate:

• Current symptoms

• Insight

• Treatment

• Medication compliance

• Functional impairment

• Testing

• Occupational risk

Active psychosis or untreated psychotic symptoms will generally support a Not Suitable recommendation.

Diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Consider:

• Current mood stability

• Medication adherence

• Psychiatric follow-up

• Hospitalizations

• Symptom recurrence

• Functional history

• Insight

Recent instability, medication changes due to worsening symptoms, or poor treatment adherence warrant increased scrutiny.

Applicants often present with several moderate concerns rather than one clearly disqualifying issue.

Consider the cumulative effect of:

• Mental health history

• Suicidal ideation

• Self-harm

• Substance use

• Integrity concerns

• Poor judgment

• Occupational instability

• Trauma

• Personality testing

Multiple moderate concerns may collectively support a Not Suitable recommendation even when no single issue would independently warrant one.

Potentially.

Risk assessment should consider:

• Access to firearms

• Exposure to trauma

• Emergency response responsibilities

• Public interaction

• Safety-sensitive duties

An applicant may demonstrate psychological suitability for certain unarmed positions while presenting unacceptable risk for armed law enforcement responsibilities.

Whenever significant mental health concerns are identified:

• Obtain relevant treatment records.

• Verify hospitalization history.

• Confirm treatment compliance.

• Review provider documentation.

• Document any unavailable records.

If records remain unavailable after reasonable efforts, clearly state the limitations of the evaluation.

• Diagnosis alone does not determine suitability.

• Current functioning carries greater weight than historical diagnosis.

• Recent instability is more clinically significant than remote history.

• Professional treatment and demonstrated recovery strengthen recommendations.

• Active psychosis, untreated serious mental illness, or recent suicidality generally warrant greater caution.

• Evaluate the cumulative impact of multiple moderate concerns.

• Objective documentation should outweigh self-report when discrepancies exist.

• Occupational risk should always be considered in relation to the specific position.

• The hiring agency makes employment decisions; FMRT provides the clinical opinion.