Reporting Staff Misconduct: The Office of Internal Affairs (Program Statement 1210.26)

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Field	Value
Program Statement	1210.26
Subject	Office of Internal Affairs
Effective / current edition	02-26-2026
Change notices	None. BOP’s published policy list carries 1210.26 with no change notice.
Supersedes	PS 1210.25, Internal Affairs, Office of (8/1/2023), rescinded — PS 1210.26 at p. 1
Governing statute	The Program Statement cites no single organic statute. It names the whistleblower provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, and 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (prohibited personnel practices); the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552; 18 U.S.C. § 4004 (oaths); 18 U.S.C. § 921; 18 U.S.C. § 2241; and PREA, 34 U.S.C. §§ 30301–30309 — PS 1210.26 at p. 15.
28 C.F.R. anchor	None governs OIA itself. The Program Statement’s only regulatory citation is 28 C.F.R. part 115, the DOJ PREA standards (p. 15). The regulation that matters to you is the one it does not cite: 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B, the Administrative Remedy Program.
Related BP forms	All five are staff forms: BP-A0194 and BP-A0773 (Warning and Assurance) · BP-A0595 Polygraph Authorization · BP-A0715 Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs) · BP-A0979 Inmate Polygraph Authorization. There is no BP form on which an incarcerated person reports staff misconduct — see below.
Official PDF	bop.gov/policy/progstat/1210_026.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

The Office of Internal Affairs is the Bureau of Prisons’ internal misconduct investigator, and Program Statement 1210.26 is the instruction telling BOP staff how to classify an allegation against an employee, how fast to report it, and when it must be handed to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. It is written entirely for staff — it does not create a complaint procedure for incarcerated people, and it says nothing about protecting an incarcerated complainant from retaliation.

That last sentence is the reason this page exists. If you or your loved one wants to report that a staff member did something wrong, this policy tells you where the report goes once it enters the system, which is genuinely useful. What it will not do is give you a form, a deadline, a right to be told the outcome, or a promise that nothing bad happens to you for filing. Below is what the policy actually says, what protection genuinely exists and where it comes from, and — the single most important practical point on this page — why a complaint to Internal Affairs does not preserve your right to go to court later.

The rule itself: staff misconduct

Everything transcribed below comes from the Bureau’s own text at bop.gov/policy/progstat/1210_026.pdf.

The three misconduct classifications

The heart of this Program Statement is its three-tier classification of allegations. The tier decides how fast the institution must report it, whether it goes to the Inspector General, and whether it can be diverted out of the investigative system entirely. From PS 1210.26 at pp. 2–5:

Tier	Definition, verbatim	Consequence
Classification 1	“allegations made against any staff member or contractor which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (except for Classification 3 cases such as traffic violations, DUI, DWI, etc.) and any allegation of serious misconduct.”	Report to OIA immediately; OIA refers to OIG within 48 hours. Not eligible for diversion.
Classification 2	“allegations of serious misconduct against any staff or contractor which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law, that if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution.”	Report to OIA immediately; OIA refers to OIG within 48 hours. Not eligible for diversion.
Classification 3	“allegations of misconduct involving staff or contractors which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations.”	Report to OIA “ordinarily not to exceed five business days” — but “complex” Class 3 cases go immediately. Referred to OIG monthly by batch report if not sooner. Some may be diverted out of investigation entirely.

The tier is set from the category of conduct alleged, and the enumerated examples are the closest thing this policy has to a code table. Classification 1 includes, verbatim from p. 3:

– Physical or sexual abuse of persons in custody, informants, protected persons, undercover operatives, persons under investigation, or persons seeking benefits from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). – Bribery, graft, or conflict of interest including the offer or acceptance of anything of value. – Fraud or extortion. – Theft, conversion, or embezzlement of government funds or property in an amount greater than $100. – Sale, possession, or trafficking in illegal drugs. – Submission of false claims. – False statements. – Concealment, removal, or mutilation of official documents. – Smuggling, including human smuggling. – Trafficking of contraband or providing contraband to any person in custody. – Discrimination or sexual harassment accompanied by violence, physical force, or other egregious misconduct. – Use of a firearm in a manner which appears to constitute a violation of law or DOJ regulations. – Criminal civil rights violations. – Facilitating the escape of any person in custody. – Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, including information in any electronic system. – Unauthorized interception of wire or oral conversation(s). – Falsification of documents. – Workplace violence. – Attempt, conspiracy, obstruction, aiding and abetting, concealment, or failure to report any matter in Classification 1.

Classification 2 includes, verbatim from pp. 3–4: “Threatening assault”; misuse of government facilities, supplies, equipment, services, personnel or identification; misuse of government computers; “Off-duty misconduct resulting in felony arrest or conviction and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 921)”; “Discrimination and sexual harassment not included in Classification 1”; “Breach of security or safety in a DOJ program or operation resulting in escape or serious injury; disclosure of confidential informants or other protected persons; or endangering staff, contractors, and clients of the DOJ”; misuse of a government purchase card over $1,000; gambling on government property; “Discharge of a firearm other than by accident”; destruction of government property; “Inappropriate relationships between staff and persons in custody, informants, protected persons, undercover operatives, persons under investigation, or persons seeking benefits from the DOJ not included in Classification 1”; unauthorized release of information; “Failure to properly account for funds, valuables, and personal property of persons in custody”; falsification of employment documents; “Intoxication or consumption of any illegal substance while on duty”; workplace violence; and “Any allegation against a GS-13 or above staff member that does not come under Classification 1.”

Classification 3 includes, verbatim from pp. 4–5: “Unprofessional conduct (disorderly conduct or abusive language)”; conducting personal business during duty hours; “Refusal or failure to follow instructions or procedures, failure to respond to an emergency, failure to properly supervise or control persons in custody”; off-duty misdemeanor arrest excluding domestic-violence misdemeanors; unauthorized use or misuse of a government vehicle; “Failure to honor just debts”; accidental discharge of a firearm; purchase-card misuse not exceeding $1,000; “Violations of security regulations”; and “Intoxication or consumption of alcohol while on duty.”

The bolded items are the ones that most often describe what an incarcerated person is actually complaining about. Read them carefully before you write anything, because the words you choose determine the tier, and the tier determines everything that follows.

The Program Statement adds one honest caveat at p. 5: “It is important to note case classifications are often based on limited preliminary information. As an investigation proceeds, the severity of actual misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby impacting what charges are sustained, if any.”

The staff reporting duty

This is the mechanism that actually gets an incarcerated person’s complaint into the system, because the policy gives staff the duty and gives you nothing. PS 1210.26 at p. 5:

a. Staff Reporting. In accordance with the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to management (the CEO or OIA) or to the OIG.

“CEO” here means the Chief Executive Officer of the facility — the Warden at an institution, and the equivalent official at a regional office or Central Office division. The Standards of Employee Conduct cross-referenced is PS 3420.14, dated May 15, 2026 — a later edition than this Program Statement, which was signed in February 2026.

The practical consequence: when you tell a staff member about misconduct, that staff member acquires a reporting duty under BOP’s own policy. That is why putting a complaint in writing, to a named person, with a dated copy retained, is worth so much more than saying it out loud in a hallway. It converts a conversation into a documented moment at which a specific employee became aware.

The time frames

These are the numbers, and they run against BOP staff — not against you. From PS 1210.26 at pp. 5–7:

Step	Time frame, verbatim	Pin-cite
CEO reports Classification 1, 2, and complex Classification 3 to OIA	“must be reported to OIA immediately”	PS 1210.26 at p. 5
Notification to OIA	“Notification to OIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time the management official learns of the matter.”	PS 1210.26 at p. 6
CEO reports ordinary Classification 3 to OIA	“must be reported to OIA within a reasonable time frame, ordinarily not to exceed five business days.”	PS 1210.26 at p. 6
OIA refers to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General	“OIA will refer Classification 1 and 2 allegations and, when appropriate, Classification 3 allegations to OIG for review within 48 hours.”	PS 1210.26 at pp. 6–7
Classification 3 batch referral to OIG	“If not already referred to OIG, Classification 3 cases must be referred to OIG at a minimum on a monthly basis via batch report or as requested by OIG.”	PS 1210.26 at p. 7
Timeliness of the investigation itself	“The timeliness of investigations is an important issue, and the timely disposition of investigations is in the best interest of all staff.” — the entire text of Section 5	PS 1210.26 at p. 7

That last row is not an abridgement. Section 5, headed “TIMELINESS,” is one sentence long and sets no deadline for completing an investigation, no deadline for deciding it, and no obligation to tell a complainant anything at any point. Every hard number in this policy governs how fast an allegation must travel upward in the first week. After that, the clock disappears.

What must go into the referral

When a CEO reports a case, the policy directs that OIA be told, verbatim at pp. 5–6: “the identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(es), and victim(s); the details of the allegation(s); and any corroborating evidence.” Staff use a BP-A0715, Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs) form to organize it, and “Supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, video, and related memoranda, to the extent available, must be transmitted with the BP-A0715 … to OIA” (p. 6).

Two provisions inside that section directly protect an incarcerated complainant, and they are worth knowing by heart. First, from p. 6:

If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by staff and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to OIA as soon as possible. Medical examinations must be conducted consistent with the Program Statement Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program. Such an evaluation may be voluntarily declined by the inmate, and the declination will be documented.

Second, and this one runs in a direction people do not expect, from p. 6: “The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to OIG clearance and OIA’s release.” The staff member you complained about is not supposed to be interviewed until the Inspector General has cleared the case. That is a real procedural safeguard against a premature confrontation — and it is also why the process can appear to be doing nothing for weeks.

The credibility rule

One sentence in this policy does more for an incarcerated complainant than anything else in it. PS 1210.26 at p. 9:

Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 34 U.S.C. § 30301–30309, and 28 C.F.R. Part 115, the credibility of an alleged victim, suspect, or witness will be assessed on an individual basis and will not be determined by the person’s status as an inmate or staff member. This assessment applies to statements throughout the investigative and administrative process and regardless of whether a statement is reduced to an affidavit.

Note the scope carefully. The sentence is framed by PREA, but by its terms it is not limited to sexual-abuse cases: it says the assessment “applies to statements throughout the investigative and administrative process.” Two related provisions sit alongside it at p. 9: “While staff subjects are required to provide an affidavit, victims of sexual assault will not be required to provide an affidavit. A memorandum of interview may be collected in such instances.” And at p. 9, on polygraphs: “Neither staff nor inmates can be compelled to take a polygraph examination.”

If a response to a complaint reduces to “we believed the officer over the inmate,” that sentence at p. 9 is the language to quote back.

Where an allegation actually goes

There are five distinct destinations, they do different things, and choosing the wrong one is the most common and most costly mistake on this subject.

1. The institution. Tell a staff member, in writing. Under PS 1210.26 at p. 5 and PS 3420.14, that staff member must report it to the Warden, to OIA, or to the OIG. The written vehicle is an Inmate Request to Staff — form BP-A0148, universally called a “cop-out” — which is the only BOP form actually available to an incarcerated person here. See Request to Staff (PS 5511.08).

2. The Office of Internal Affairs. OIA is “a component of the Director’s Office” precisely so it sits outside the institution’s chain of command (PS 1210.26 at p. 1), and it is “responsible for all staff investigations” (p. 7). The direct email addresses the policy publishes at pp. 5–6 are staff mailboxes on the Bureau’s internal network; an incarcerated person cannot reach them from a monitored inmate email system. In practice your allegation reaches OIA because a staff member referred it, or because the OIG sent it there.

3. The DOJ Office of the Inspector General. This is the external route, and it is the one route in this policy that is genuinely outside the Bureau. PS 1210.26 at p. 5 states: “The OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report Department of Justice staff misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. Reports may also be submitted via the OIG online form.” We opened the OIG’s own hotline pages to verify the route. The DOJ OIG Hotline states that “If you know about waste, fraud, abuse, misconduct, or whistleblower retaliation within the Department of Justice (DOJ), you may report it to the OIG Hotline,” and directs complainants to an online submission. The complaint form itself carries an explicit anonymous-filing option, with this caution in the OIG’s own words: “I understand my decision to elect anonymity may limit DOJ OIG’s ability to conduct an inquiry (if one is warranted) or thoroughly review and/or resolve the allegations in the complaint.” A person inside cannot use a web form; a family member on the outside can, and frequently should.

4. The PREA channel, for sexual abuse or sexual harassment. This is a different and stronger system, and it should be used whenever it fits. Do not route a sexual-abuse allegation through a general misconduct complaint. Our page is PREA and Sexual Abuse Prevention (PS 5333.01), and the regulation is 28 C.F.R. part 115. Two provisions there have no analogue anywhere in PS 1210.26 — see the next section.

5. The Administrative Remedy Program, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. These are the two routes that create your record rather than the Bureau’s. The administrative remedy is BP-9 to the Warden, BP-10 to the Regional Director, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals, under 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B and PS 1330.18. A claim for personal injury or lost property is a different track entirely, on an SF-95 or BP-A0943 under the Federal Tort Claims Act (PS 1320.07). Neither is mentioned anywhere in PS 1210.26.

There is a sixth track worth knowing about for serious incidents. PS 1210.21, Boards of Inquiry and Inquiry Teams (3/9/2000), is a separate directive in the same policy series under which “Only the Director may create a Board of Inquiry, and only a Regional Director or Warden (with Regional Director approval) may create an Inquiry Team” to establish the facts of an incident significant enough to warrant a higher level of review. It is not a complaint channel — it is convened from above — but where a death, a serious injury or a major institutional failure is involved, asking in writing whether an Inquiry Team was convened, and requesting its report, is a legitimate and specific records question.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: File in two places on the same day, and do not let anyone talk you into treating them as alternatives. Send a cop-out naming the conduct in the vocabulary of the classification list, and start the BP-9 clock. Then have someone on the outside file with the DOJ OIG hotline, describing the same facts with the same dates. The cop-out and the BP-9 protect your ability to get into court; the OIG filing is the only piece of this that leaves the Bureau. And keep two copies of everything, one with you and one mailed home — the file that survives is the one that is not in the building.

What protection exists, and what does not

We are going to be blunt here, because the honest answer is not the reassuring one.

PS 1210.26 contains no anti-retaliation provision for an incarcerated complainant. We read all fifteen pages. Every protective provision in the document runs to federal employees. At p. 5, “All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal” — Bureau staff. At pp. 2 and 5, OIA “serves as the point of contact for all staff members at all levels to report instances of mismanagement, prohibited personnel practices, staff misconduct, and other issues covered by the ‘whistleblower’ provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,” and staff may report prohibited personnel practices to the Office of Special Counsel — staff again. There is no sentence anywhere in this Program Statement addressing what happens if an incarcerated person is retaliated against for reporting.

The federal whistleblower statute does not cover you. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) prohibits taking or threatening a personnel action because of a protected disclosure of evidence of a legal violation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; § 2302(b)(9) protects the exercise of appeal and grievance rights and cooperation with an Inspector General. Both are limited by the statute’s own scope language, which we pulled and read: the prohibitions operate “with respect to an employee in, or applicant for, a covered position in an agency.” A “personnel action” is an appointment, promotion, reassignment, performance evaluation, and the like. Nothing in § 2302 protects an incarcerated person, and no lawyer, consultant or website should tell you otherwise. It is a civil-service statute. It protects the officer who reports a colleague. It does not protect you.

Neither does the Administrative Remedy Program’s own policy. We searched PS 1330.18 (1/6/2014), the Administrative Remedy Program statement, for any retaliation or reprisal provision. There is none.

Here is what does exist, and it is narrower than people assume — but it is real. For sexual abuse and sexual harassment specifically, the DOJ PREA standards impose a binding regulatory obligation. 28 C.F.R. § 115.67:

(a) The agency shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff, and shall designate which staff members or departments are charged with monitoring retaliation. (b) The agency shall employ multiple protection measures, such as housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or sexual harassment or for cooperating with investigations. (c) For at least 90 days following a report of sexual abuse, the agency shall monitor the conduct and treatment of inmates or staff who reported the sexual abuse and of inmates who were reported to have suffered sexual abuse to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff, and shall act promptly to remedy any such retaliation.

Section 115.67(c) goes on: “Items the agency should monitor include any inmate disciplinary reports, housing, or program changes, or negative performance reviews or reassignments of staff,” and “The agency shall continue such monitoring beyond 90 days if the initial monitoring indicates a continuing need.” Subsection (d) adds that for inmates “such monitoring shall also include periodic status checks,” and subsection (e) that “If any other individual who cooperates with an investigation expresses a fear of retaliation, the agency shall take appropriate measures to protect that individual against retaliation.” One limit, at subsection (f): “An agency’s obligation to monitor shall terminate if the agency determines that the allegation is unfounded.”

The companion reporting rule, 28 C.F.R. § 115.51, also has no equivalent in PS 1210.26. It directs that the agency “shall provide multiple internal ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting,” and “shall also provide at least one way for inmates to report abuse or harassment to a public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency … allowing the inmate to remain anonymous upon request.” And: “Staff shall accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and shall promptly document any verbal reports.”

So the honest summary, stated in one place:

Situation	Anti-retaliation protection	Confidential / anonymous reporting	Source
Sexual abuse or sexual harassment by staff	Yes — binding regulation, with at least 90 days of monitoring and named items to monitor	Yes — at least one external route, anonymous on request; verbal, written, anonymous and third-party reports must be accepted	28 C.F.R. §§ 115.51, 115.67
Any other staff misconduct — assault, theft, contraband, falsified documents, denial of care	No provision in PS 1210.26 and none in PS 1330.18	Anonymity available only through the DOJ OIG hotline, and OIG warns it may limit the inquiry	PS 1210.26 (whole document); oig.justice.gov/hotline
A federal employee reporting misconduct	Yes — CSRA / 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9), enforced through the Office of Special Counsel	Yes — OIG hotline, anonymously	PS 1210.26 at pp. 2, 5

That gap in the middle row is not an oversight in our reading. It is the finding. Plan around it: document everything contemporaneously, mail copies out of the building, and if the conduct is sexual in nature, say so plainly and route it through PREA, because that is where the regulatory protection lives.

Why a complaint to Internal Affairs does not preserve your right to sue

This is the most valuable thing on this page, and it is the mistake we see most often.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a): “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” “Exhaustion” means completing every level of the internal grievance ladder, in the right form, on time, before filing anything in court.

The Supreme Court held in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006), that the statute demands proper exhaustion, not merely an attempt: “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Proper exhaustion, the Court explained, “means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).”

The step the agency holds out is the Administrative Remedy Program — not Internal Affairs. The Fourth Circuit laid the ladder out in Williams v. Carvajal, 63 F.4th 279 (4th Cir. 2023):

To fully exhaust the ARP, prisoners must follow the guidelines set out in 28 C.F.R. part 542. First, they must attempt an informal resolution with prison staff. 28 C.F.R § 542.13(a). Second, they must request and file a formal written Administrative Remedy Request on the appropriate form with certain identifying information. Id. § 542.14(a). This step must be completed within 20 days of the incident that gave rise to the grievance, and the facility warden has up to 40 days to respond. Id. §§ 542.14(a), 542.18. After receiving the warden’s response, an inmate must submit an appeal to the appropriate BOP Regional Director within 20 days. Id. § 542.15(a). The Regional Director then has up to 60 days to respond to the appeal. Id. § 542.18. Lastly, the “final administrative appeal” is to BOP’s General Counsel, which must be completed within 30 days of the Regional Director’s signed response. Id. § 542.15(a).

Four steps. Twenty days to start. Courts have applied that squarely to letters sent to oversight offices instead. In Green v. Fisher, No. 3:13-cv-00512 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2014) — a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, so persuasive rather than binding — the court considered a federal prisoner who had written to the Inspector General, Internal Affairs and the Office of Professional Responsibility, and concluded that his “correspondence with the Inspector General’s Office, Office of Internal Affairs, and Office of Professional Responsibility do not show that full use of the administrative remedies available to him would have been futile.” The petition was recommended for dismissal for failure to exhaust.

Put those three together and the rule for a reader is simple, and it is not intuitive:

• Reporting to OIA or the OIG starts an investigation of the employee. It is a disciplinary process that belongs to the Bureau and the Department of Justice, and you are a witness in it, not a party.
• Filing a BP-9 → BP-10 → BP-11 preserves your own claim. It is the only one of the two that stops a court from dismissing you at the threshold.
• They are not alternatives. Do both, and do the BP-9 inside twenty days.

Note also what the twenty-day rule means in a misconduct case specifically. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) runs the clock from “the date on which the basis for the Request occurred,” with an extension “[w]here the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.” Someone who spends six weeks waiting to hear back from Internal Affairs before filing a BP-9 has, in most cases, already missed it. Our explainers are Administrative Remedy Program (PS 1330.18) and Prison Grievances.

What the staff misconduct policy means for you

If you are the person inside: write it down the same day

Write it down the same day, while the detail is fresh, and put the date and the time on it. Name the conduct in the language the classification list uses — “failure to properly supervise or control persons in custody,” “trafficking of contraband,” “physical abuse of a person in custody,” “failure to properly account for funds, valuables, and personal property of persons in custody” — because the tier drives the deadline and the referral to the Inspector General. Vague language gets classified low. Specific language gets classified where it belongs.

Then file in both lanes. A cop-out (BP-A0148) to a named staff member creates a documented moment at which an employee became aware and acquired a duty to report. A BP-9 within twenty days protects your right to be heard in court later. If the allegation is sexual, say so in those words and use the PREA channels — the regulatory protections at § 115.51 and § 115.67 only attach if you frame it that way. If you were physically or sexually abused and have not been medically examined, ask for the examination in writing and reference PS 1210.26 at p. 6, which directs the CEO to arrange an immediate confidential examination.

Expect silence. There is no obligation anywhere in this policy to tell you the outcome. The policy provides that OIA “must notify CEOs of case closures” and that “For not sustained investigations, appropriate notification will be made to the subject of the investigation” (p. 12) — the subject, meaning the employee. Not the complainant. Silence is not evidence that nothing happened, and it is not evidence that something did.

If you are the family: two things you can do that he cannot

You can do two things your loved one cannot.

File with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General. The online complaint form accepts complaints from anyone and can be submitted anonymously — though OIG’s own caution, quoted above, is that anonymity may limit its ability to inquire. Give dates, names, register number, facility, and what you personally observed or were told and when. This is the only route that goes outside the Bureau.

Keep the file. Have every cop-out, every BP-9 receipt, every response and every dated note mailed to you. Institutional property gets lost, cells get searched, and people get transferred. The copy at your kitchen table is often the only surviving record, and it is what makes a later filing specific instead of vague.

What you cannot do is force an investigation, get told the outcome, or discipline anyone. Those are the Bureau’s and the Department’s decisions. What you can do is make the record complete enough that the decision has to be made on the facts. Our orientation page for families is What Families Should Know About Federal Prison, and the broader rights overview is What Rights Do Prisoners Have?.

If you are counsel: staff misconduct

Three practical notes.

Exhaustion first, and calendar it. The twenty-day BP-9 window under § 542.14(a) is the thing that gets missed while a client waits on Internal Affairs. Woodford and Williams v. Carvajal are the two authorities to have ready. Where the client alleges a Rehabilitation Act violation, note that Williams held such claims require exhausting both the ARP and the separate DOJ EEO process under 28 C.F.R. § 39.170, with the EEO complaint filed within 180 days of completing the ARP — a second gate most practitioners miss.

Know why the investigation may be quiet, and why prosecution is uncommon. Staff subjects are interviewed after being given a BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information (BP-A0773 for contract staff), which PS 1210.26 at p. 8 describes as preventing “the use of any statement provided from being used in a criminal prosecution, provided the subject does not knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information,” and which the policy grounds in Kalkines v. United States, 473 F.2d 1391 (Ct. Cl. 1973). Kalkines holds that a public employee “can be removed for not replying if he is adequately informed both that he is subject to discharge for not answering and that his replies (and their fruits) cannot be employed against him in a criminal case.” Disclosure: the citator flags Kalkines with a caution status; verify its current treatment before relying on it in a filing. The structural point stands regardless — compelled administrative statements are walled off from criminal use, which is one reason an OIA investigation that sustains misconduct often produces discipline rather than an indictment.

Get the paper. Under PS 1210.26 at p. 11, “The Chief, OIA, must approve disclosure of investigative reports pursuant to either Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552) requests or other requests,” and — a detail worth noting — “Absent rare circumstances, the complete investigative packet will be released to the subject of any sustained, closed investigation upon request.” That release route runs to the employee, not the complainant, so a complainant’s path is a FOIA and Privacy Act request, with the predictable Exemption 6 and 7(C) fight over third-party privacy. Where the claim is injury or lost property, the Federal Tort Claims Act track on an SF-95 runs on its own clock and is not a substitute for the BP-9.

A note on scope: this firm defends. We represent the incarcerated person and the family, we do not act for plaintiffs in prisoner civil-rights litigation, and we do not represent Bureau employees under investigation. Where a matter belongs in a damages action, we say so and refer it out.

What changed with Program Statement 1210.26

PS 1210.26, dated February 26, 2026 and signed by Director William K. Marshall III, rescinded PS 1210.25, Internal Affairs, Office of (8/1/2023) — PS 1210.26 at p. 1. The Bureau listed three changes, verbatim:

– Updates policy title from “Internal Affairs, Office of” to “Office of Internal Affairs.” – Adds misconduct alternatives. – Clarifies legal authorities.

The middle one is the substantive change, and it is not small. “Misconduct alternatives” means the Bureau added Section 11, “ALTERNATIVES TO INVESTIGATION,” at pp. 12–14, containing two new mechanisms that did not exist in the 2023 edition.

The Misconduct Diversion Program. From p. 12: “The MDP provides CEOs and staff an option to resolve some Classification 3 allegations of staff misconduct without the need for a referral to OIA or subsequent investigation. The MDP is not available for staff who are GS-13 or above, Public Health Service staff, or staff in a probationary period.” The listed offenses are, verbatim: “a. AWOL (up to 40 hours); b. Failure to Follow Supervisor Instructions; c. Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates; d. Failure to Follow Leave Procedures; e. Failure to Follow Policy (including Failure to Follow Post Orders); f. Unprofessional Conduct; or g. Inattention to Duty.” The policy adds that “The list of included offenses may be updated as needed.”

Read item (c) again, and item (e), and item (f). Those three describe a great deal of what an incarcerated person actually complains about — an officer who did not supervise, who did not follow the post orders, who was abusive in tone. Under the 2026 edition, a Classification 3 allegation of that kind can now be resolved by a signed Misconduct Diversion Agreement between the CEO’s designee and the employee, with a pre-set discipline based on prior agreements, and no referral to OIA and no investigation. The agreement is voluntary on both sides (p. 13), and a staff member who signs one “voluntarily waive[s] any right to challenge the discipline imposed under the diversion program in any administrative or judicial forum.”

This matters to a complainant for one reason: it is now possible for your complaint to be resolved without ever being investigated, and without anyone taking a statement from you. That is not a reason to skip filing. It is a reason to make sure the conduct you describe is not only a Classification 3 matter if the facts support more — and to file the BP-9 regardless, because the administrative remedy is the only track that produces a decision addressed to you.

Irrefutable evidence. The second addition, at pp. 13–14: “In circumstances where there is evidence of misconduct so clear an investigation is not necessary to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that misconduct has occurred, the CEO may consult with the Bureau’s ELB [Employment Law Branch] to determine whether it is in the best interest of the Bureau to move forward with disciplinary or adverse action in advance of a completed investigation.” Even then, “a referral to OIA must be completed and submitted.”

Two currency notes on the third change, “clarifies legal authorities.” The Standards of Employee Conduct that PS 1210.26 repeatedly cross-references without a number has been reissued twice since this policy was signed: PS 3420.14 (5/15/2026), which rescinded PS 3420.13 (5/7/2026). The Table of Penalties this Program Statement invokes at p. 4 now lives in 3420.14. And the reference at p. 7 to OIG referring criminal matters to the DOJ Civil Rights Division “under the provisions of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq.” is a broad, dated framing: § 2241 is aggravated sexual abuse, while the provisions that most often reach a correctional officer are elsewhere in chapter 109A and in the federal civil-rights criminal statutes. Confirm the charging statute against the conduct rather than relying on the policy’s shorthand.

Where people get stuck reporting staff misconduct

“I told a lieutenant and nothing happened.” Verbal reports leave no trace. Put it on a cop-out, keep a dated copy, and file a BP-9 within twenty days of the incident — not twenty days from when you gave up waiting. If staff refuse to give you the forms, document the refusal in writing with the date, time and name, because unavailability of the remedy is the one recognized answer to a failure-to-exhaust defense, and it has to be proved with specifics.

“I filed with the Inspector General, so I’ve done what I need to.” No. That starts an investigation of the employee; it does not exhaust your administrative remedy, and courts have said so — see Green v. Fisher and the exhaustion section above. File the BP-9 too, and file it now.

“They said it was investigated and not sustained, and won’t tell me anything.” They are not obliged to. Under PS 1210.26 at p. 12, notification of a not-sustained closure goes to “the subject of the investigation,” meaning the employee. Your route to information is a FOIA and Privacy Act request — expect heavy redaction of third-party information — and, if the underlying harm is ongoing, a new administrative remedy directed at the condition rather than at the investigation.

“I’m afraid of what happens to me if I report.” That fear is reasonable and this policy does not answer it. What we can tell you: if the conduct is sexual abuse or sexual harassment, 28 C.F.R. § 115.67 imposes a binding duty to monitor for retaliation for at least 90 days and to act promptly to remedy it, and § 115.51 requires an outside reporting route that permits anonymity. If it is anything else, the only anonymous route is the DOJ OIG hotline, and OIG warns that anonymity may limit what it can do. Documenting contemporaneously and mailing copies out of the building is the practical substitute for a protection the policy does not provide. Where retaliation does follow — a sudden shot, a transfer, a housing or job change close in time to a complaint — that sequence is itself the subject of a new administrative remedy, and the dates are what make it legible. See Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) and How to Defend Against Bureau of Prisons Disciplinary Proceedings.

Where the harm is a physical injury, a denial of medical care, or lost property, the misconduct complaint is only half the answer — the other half is the Federal Tort Claims Act track, or the medical-care track at Patient Care (PS 6031.06). Where the situation is ongoing and serious, it belongs in a consult: Federal Prison Consulting Services, Federal Prison Problems, or contact us.

Related BOP policy on staff misconduct

The paired page is What Rights Do Prisoners Have?, which owns the general rights question; this page carries the misconduct-reporting rule and links back to it.

The routes: Administrative Remedy Program (PS 1330.18) — the one that preserves your claim; Prison Grievances for the plain-language walkthrough; Request to Staff (PS 5511.08) for the BP-A0148 cop-out; Federal Tort Claims Act (PS 1320.07) for injury and property claims; and FOIA and Privacy Act Requests (PS 1351.05) for the records.

Where the conduct is sexual: PREA and Sexual Abuse Prevention (PS 5333.01) is the governing page and should be used instead of this one, because that is where the regulatory anti-retaliation and anonymous-reporting protections live. Related: Violence and Sexual Assault in Prison and Protective Custody.

Adjacent subjects: Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) and Prison Disciplinary Infractions, because a retaliatory incident report is the most common form retaliation takes; Special Housing Units (PS 5270.12) and Solitary Confinement and Special Housing Units; Searches of Inmates and Housing (PS 5521.06); Inmate Personal Property (PS 5580.10) where property is the issue; Patient Care (PS 6031.06) and Treatment and Care of Inmates With Mental Illness (PS 5310.16) where care is; and Inmate Legal Activities (PS 1315.08) plus Attorney-Client Communications in Federal Prison for getting the documents to counsel. Further reading on our site: DOJ Inspector General Report Reveals Alarming Federal Prison Inmate Deaths Crisis.

Frequently Asked Questions About Reporting Staff Misconduct

---

Program Statement 1210.26 — full text

The full text below is the Bureau of Prisons’ own language, reproduced from its published PDF without summary or abridgment. Source: Program Statement 1210.26 (PDF).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons

PROGRAM STATEMENT Office of Internal Affairs Approved by

William K. Marshall III Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons DPI DIR Number 1210.26 Date February 26, 2026

Summary of Changes Program Statement Rescinded:

• 1210.25 Internal Affairs, Office of (8/1/2023) Changes:
• Updates policy title from “Internal Affairs, Office of” to “Office of Internal Affairs.”
• Adds misconduct alternatives.
• Clarifies legal authorities.

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

To instruct staff on the procedures for reporting allegations of staff misconduct to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) and for conducting investigations of allegations.

It is the Bureau of Prisons’ (Bureau) policy to strive for professionalism, efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, productivity, and integrity. This requires the identification of mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as the investigation of violations and allegations of violations per the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct. OIA ensures all allegations of these types are investigated and will reach its findings based upon clearly established facts.

To maintain its high level of independence and credibility, OIA is a component of the Director’s Office.

a. Program Objectives.

• Reduction of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and staff misconduct.
• Enhance the security of Bureau facilities and protection of the public by applying sound investigative procedures practiced by knowledgeable professionals.
• Proper collection, handling, and preservation of evidence. When appropriate, evidence will also be provided to other agencies.
• Appropriate reporting of completed investigations of staff misconduct to Chief Executive Officers (CEOs).
• Appropriate notification of investigations not sustained be made to the subject(s) of the investigations.
• Criminal acts to be promptly referred to the appropriate law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction.
• Accurate and prompt completion of reports.
• Prompt resolution of cases and electronic data preservation, according to the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS).

b. Institution Supplement. None.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES

OIA ensures all violations and allegations of violations of staff misconduct per the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct, including criminal matters, are reported to the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

OIA serves as the point of contact for all staff members at all levels to report instances of mismanagement, prohibited personnel practices, staff misconduct, and other issues covered by the “whistleblower” provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) Pub. L. No. 95- 454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified throughout 5 U.S.C.).

OIA will:

• Conduct special investigations, inquiries, and reviews as requested by the Director, Bureau of Prisons.
• Conduct staff misconduct investigations and provide all investigators with technical guidance and expertise.
• Maintain a secure computer database of all cases and complaints to ensure accountability.

3. MISCONDUCT CLASSIFICATIONS

a. Classification 1 cases are defined as allegations made against any staff member or contractor which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (except for Classification 3 cases such as traffic violations, DUI, DWI, etc.) and any allegation of serious misconduct. Examples of Classification 1 misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Physical or sexual abuse of persons in custody, informants, protected persons, undercover operatives, persons under investigation, or persons seeking benefits from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
• Bribery, graft, or conflict of interest including the offer or acceptance of anything of value.
• Fraud or extortion.
• Theft, conversion, or embezzlement of government funds or property in an amount greater than $100.
• Sale, possession, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
• Submission of false claims.
• False statements.
• Concealment, removal, or mutilation of official documents.
• Smuggling, including human smuggling.
• Trafficking of contraband or providing contraband to any person in custody.
• Discrimination or sexual harassment accompanied by violence, physical force, or other egregious misconduct.
• Use of a firearm in a manner which appears to constitute a violation of law or DOJ regulations.
• Criminal civil rights violations.
• Facilitating the escape of any person in custody.
• Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, including information in any electronic system.
• Unauthorized interception of wire or oral conversation(s).
• Falsification of documents.
• Workplace violence.
• Attempt, conspiracy, obstruction, aiding and abetting, concealment, or failure to report any matter in Classification 1.

b. Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations of serious misconduct against any staff or contractor which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law, that if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution. Examples of Classification 2 misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Threatening assault.
• Use of government facilities, supplies, equipment, services, personnel, or identification for other than official purposes.
• Misuse of government computers and computer software, to include the internet and email.
• Off-duty misconduct resulting in felony arrest or conviction and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 921).
• Discrimination and sexual harassment not included in Classification 1.
• Breach of security or safety in a DOJ program or operation resulting in escape or serious

injury; disclosure of confidential informants or other protected persons; or endangering staff, contractors, and clients of the DOJ.

• Use of a government purchase card for other than its intended purpose in an amount greater than $1,000.
• Gambling or promotion of gambling on government property.
• Discharge of a firearm other than by accident.
• Destruction of government property.
• Inappropriate relationships between staff and persons in custody, informants, protected persons, undercover operatives, persons under investigation, or persons seeking benefits from the DOJ not included in Classification 1.
• Unauthorized release of information not included in Classification 1.
• Failure to properly account for funds, valuables, and personal property of persons in custody.
• Falsification of employment documents.
• Intoxication or consumption of any illegal substance while on duty.
• Attempt, conspiracy, obstruction, aiding and abetting, concealment, or failure to report any matter in Classification 2.
• Workplace violence.
• Any allegation against a GS-13 or above staff member that does not come under Classification 1.

c. Classification 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct involving staff or contractors which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations.

However, these acts of misconduct may result in severe adverse or disciplinary action, depending on the severity of the misconduct, in accordance with the Table of Penalties in the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct.

Examples of Classification 3 misconduct include, but are not limited to:

• Unprofessional conduct (disorderly conduct or abusive language).
• Conducting personal business during duty hours.
• Refusal or failure to follow instructions or procedures, failure to respond to an emergency, failure to properly supervise or control persons in custody.
• Off-duty misconduct resulting in misdemeanor arrest excluding misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 921).
• Unauthorized use/misuse of a government vehicle, or other government property.
• Failure to honor just debts.
• Accidental discharge of a firearm.
• Use of a government purchase card for other than its intended purpose in an amount not exceeding $1,000.
• Violations of security regulations.
• Intoxication or consumption of alcohol while on duty.

It is important to note case classifications are often based on limited preliminary information. As an investigation proceeds, the severity of actual misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby impacting what charges are sustained, if any.

4. REPORTING INCIDENTS OF STAFF MISCONDUCT

a. Staff Reporting. In accordance with the Program Statement Standards of Employee

Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to management (the CEO or OIA) or to the OIG.

• The OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report Department of Justice staff misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. Reports may also be submitted via the OIG online form found at: Employee or Program Complaint (justice.gov) (https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/employee- or-program-complaint/form).
• All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal.
• To report violations directly to OIA, email allegations to [email protected].
• If a staff member issued for reporting violations or alleged violations of the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct, when notified, an OGC representative will provide the staff member with their understanding of Title 28 CFR regarding legal representation.
• All Bureau staff may also report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and prohibited personnel practices defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) directly to the Office of Special Counsel, an independent government agency. The reporting hotlines are either (1-800- 872-9855) or (202-643-7188). More information about the Office of Special Counsel and its functions can be found at its website, www.osc.gov.

b. CEO Reporting. Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Program Statement

Standards of Employee Conduct, either through a report from a staff member or through personal knowledge, the CEO at the institution, regional office, or Central Office division, or their designee, must report the alleged misconduct to OIA in accordance with the following time frames:

(1) Report Immediately. Classification 1, 2, and complex Classification 3 cases must be reported to OIA immediately. OIA is to be notified of all cases, including:

• the identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(es), and victim(s);
• the details of the allegation(s); and
• any corroborating evidence.

Notification to OIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time the management official learns of the matter.

(2) Report Within Reasonable Time. Classification 3 cases (other than complex cases, as noted above) must be reported to OIA within a reasonable time frame, ordinarily not to exceed five business days.

(3) Referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)/Other Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suspected criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to OIA and to the local OIG/FBI simultaneously. However, even in cases where the matter has been referred to OIG or the FBI, a referral must also be sent to OIA.

(4) Initial Information. A BP-A0715, Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs) (In Preparation of Telephonic Report) form, is used to organize the information to be provided to OIA.

• The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to OIG clearance and OIA’s release. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject.
• When fact finding is necessary to determine if a referral is warranted, it is not appropriate to obtain staff affidavits prior to an investigation being authorized.

(5) Supporting Documentation. Supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, video, and related memoranda, to the extent available, must be transmitted with the BP-A0715, Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs) (In Preparation of Telephonic Report) form to OIA.

• If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by staff and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to OIA as soon as possible. Medical examinations must be conducted consistent with the Program Statement Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program. Such an evaluation may be voluntarily declined by the inmate, and the declination will be documented.

The email referral should include scanned supporting documentation. The OIA resource mailbox ([email protected]) should be used. The referral should be scanned into one attachment and include all available supporting documentation. The subject line of the email should reflect the institution and classification level of the alleged misconduct.

c. Referral to OIG. OIA will refer Classification 1 and 2 allegations and, when appropriate,

Classification 3 allegations to OIG for review within 48 hours. If not already referred to OIG, Classification 3 cases must be referred to OIG at a minimum on a monthly basis via batch report or as requested by OIG.

• For cases other than those referred via batch report, OIG will advise OIA of its decision either to investigate the matter or defer it to the Bureau for an administrative investigation.
• OIG may refer criminal matters (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse of an inmate) to the DOJ, Civil Rights Division (CRT), for prosecutorial consideration under the provisions of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. and other applicable statutes.

If OIG or CRT accepts the case, no further investigative action may be taken at the institution, regional, or Central Office level without OIG’s or CRT’s approval.

• Normally, OIA will serve as the contact point for all communication between institution, regional, and Central Office staff and OIG or CRT in these cases.
• In cases when field staff are in contact directly with OIG, status updates will be reported to OIA regularly.

5. TIMELINESS

The timeliness of investigations is an important issue, and the timely disposition of investigations is in the best interest of all staff.

6. INVESTIGATIONS

OIA is responsible for all staff investigations.

• During these investigations, CEOs and investigators must follow the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a).
• Staff trained in investigative techniques must conduct administrative investigations of alleged staff misconduct.
• OIA must notify OIG immediately of any additional allegations of criminal wrongdoing that develop during an investigation.

a. Interviewing Staff.

• The OIA investigator must exercise extreme care to ensure all subjects implicated in

wrongdoing are afforded the opportunity to read and sign the BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information form. For contract staff, use the BP-A0773, Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information form, prior to questioning. The BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information form, for contract staff and the BP-A0773, Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information form, prevent the use of any statement provided from being used in a criminal prosecution, provided the subject does not knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information.

• Victims, witnesses, and other individuals who are sources of collateral information should not be required to review and sign a BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information form. For contract staff, use a BP-A0773, Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information form.
• If, during the investigation, these sources provide information implicating themselves in wrongdoing, the investigator will stop the interview and execute a BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information form, consistent with Kalkines v. United States, 473 F.2d 1391, (Ct. Cl. 1973). For contract staff, use a BP-A0773, Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information form.
• Victims, witnesses, collateral sources, and subjects will be advised at the end of the interview the subject matter of the interview and any information exchanged with the investigator are confidential and may not be discussed with others except to the extent provided by whistleblower protection laws.

(1) When the interview of a subject or witness reveals information that may implicate the person criminally that is not already contemplated by the referral, the investigator will suspend the interview immediately and refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement officials and OIA.

(2) Normally, the appropriate version of the Warning and Assurance form to be used at the local level is the BP-A0194, Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information; for contract staff, the form is the BP-A0773, Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information.

b. Staff, Inmate, and Evidence Availability. All Bureau staff must cooperate fully with all

investigative personnel.

• Staff, inmates, all documents, and all video related to the investigation will be made available to the investigator.
• Staff who are questioned during an investigation will cooperate fully, pursuant to the provisions of the Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct.
• Staff who are interviewed may not discuss the investigation’s subject matter or information regarding the investigation shared with the investigator with others except to the extent provided by whistleblower protection laws.

c. Affidavits. Ordinarily, affidavits addressing all salient issues will be obtained during an investigation from staff witnesses and subjects. No staff will be required to sign statements or affidavits the staff member believes to be inaccurate or incorrect.

While staff subjects are required to provide an affidavit, victims of sexual assault will not be required to provide an affidavit. A memorandum of interview may be collected in such instances.

Consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 34 U.S.C. § 30301–30309, and 28 C.F.R. Part 115, the credibility of an alleged victim, suspect, or witness will be assessed on an individual basis and will not be determined by the person’s status as an inmate or staff member. This assessment applies to statements throughout the investigative and administrative process and regardless of whether a statement is reduced to an affidavit.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4004 authorizes agency investigators, including OIA and other specifically designated Bureau staff, to administer oaths.

7. APPROVAL FOR SEARCHES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

The Chief, OIA, must be consulted whenever the investigator seeks to request a search of Bureau information technology systems (including logs) in the course of an internal misconduct investigation. In accordance with DOJ policy the Chief, OIA, will obtain concurrence of the Bureau authorized officials who may approve such searches.

8. APPROVAL AND USE OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS

a. Circumstances. Occasionally, it may be appropriate to use a polygraph examination as an

investigative tool. Whenever possible, use the FBI or OIG Polygraph Section. All requests for polygraph examinations regarding staff misconduct must be coordinated through OIA.

• Neither staff nor inmates can be compelled to take a polygraph examination.

b. Approval. To ensure the judicious use of polygraph examinations, the Chief, or Acting

Chief, OIA, has the sole authority to approve a polygraph examination during internal

investigations into staff misconduct.

• OIA approval for polygraph examinations is not necessary in cases unrelated to staff misconduct or when outside authorities are conducting an external investigation of staff misconduct.

c. Subject Authorization. Prior to participating in a polygraph examination, a staff member is required to sign a BP-A0595, Polygraph Authorization form. Prior to allowing an inmate to take a polygraph examination, the inmate must sign the BP-A0979, Inmate Polygraph Authorization form.

9. APPROVAL FOR USE OF BODY WIRES, CONSENSUAL TELEPHONE

MONITORING, AND ELECTRONIC LISTENING/RECORDING DEVICES.

The Chief, OIA, must be consulted whenever the investigator contemplates the use of body wires or electronic listening devices during an internal investigation.

• The DOJ, Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) approval is required prior to implementation of this course of action. It will be obtained from OEO by the Chief, OIA.
• Consensual telephone monitoring/recording in an internal investigation requires the approval of the Chief, OIA.
• OEO approval is also required whenever an outside law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation contemplates the use of Bureau staff. As CEOs are developing investigative strategies which involve Bureau staff in this manner, they must consult with their respective Regional Director and the Assistant Director, OGC, to ensure all aspects of staff short-term and long-term safety are considered and to be certain other options for gathering evidence have been explored thoroughly.

Staff will not be compelled to participate in the use of body wires, consensual telephone monitoring, and electronic listening/recording devices.

The Bureau Director will be consulted with a final recommendation.

• OEO approval is required when an outside law enforcement agency contemplates using an inmate and consensual monitoring devices, furloughs, or extraordinary transfers may be necessary.

10. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS

a. Preparation. When an internal investigation is concluded, an investigative report will be

prepared.

• If prepared by OIA Special Agents or Supervisory Special Agents (SSA), ordinarily, a copy is forwarded to the applicable Assistant Director(s), Regional Director(s), CEO(s) involved, and OIG, if necessary.
• Investigative reports prepared by Special Investigative Agents (SIAs) will be forwarded through the monitoring agent to the SSA(s) or Chief, OIA, for review and approval. A copy of all investigative and disciplinary documents on all cases must also be forwarded.
• OIA will provide a copy to OIG, the Regional Director(s), and/or Assistant Director(s) when applicable.

All parties possessing copies of investigative reports must ensure the reports are safeguarded from loss or unauthorized disclosure.

• The Chief, OIA, must approve disclosure of investigative reports pursuant to either Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552) requests or other requests. Absent rare circumstances, the complete investigative packet will be released to the subject of any sustained, closed investigation upon request through the subject’s local Human Resources Department. The complete investigative packet may include predicating documents, affidavits, supporting documentation (including media files pursuant to a protective order as appropriate), and the investigative report.

Subjects of not sustained, closed cases may request the investigative packet through a FOIA request.

b. Format and Contents. Investigative reports will be prepared in narrative form containing

findings of fact and conclusions.

• The investigative report should include the investigator’s conclusions based on a review of the evidence and state whether the allegation(s) is/are sustained.
• Reports from SIAs, including all affidavits and supporting documentation, will be forwarded through the monitoring agent to the SSA(s) or Chief, OIA, for review and clearance before any disciplinary action is proposed.
• These reports are reviewed to ensure they address the pertinent issues, and the conclusions are supported factually. Any concerns noted will be communicated to the submitting office.

c. Disciplinary/Adverse Action Reporting. When disciplinary or adverse action results from

an investigation, OIA will receive a copy of the final decision, including proposal and decision letters, as well as any Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50), for inclusion in the case file. In the instance no formal disciplinary action is taken, Employment Law Branch (ELB) concurrence must be provided.

d. Closing the Case File. After receiving the final report, the Chief, OIA, or appropriate

designee, is to decide whether to close the case file. This decision will be based upon the investigation’s findings and other related matters.

OIA must notify CEOs of case closures. For not sustained investigations, appropriate notification will be made to the subject of the investigation.

11. ALTERNATIVES TO INVESTIGATION

• Misconduct Diversion Program (MDP)
• The MDP provides CEOs and staff an option to resolve some Classification 3 allegations of staff misconduct without the need for a referral to OIA or subsequent investigation. The MDP is not available for staff who are GS-13 or above, Public Health Service staff, or staff in a probationary period.
• The following Classification 3 misconduct allegations are included in the MDP:

a. AWOL (up to 40 hours);

b. Failure to Follow Supervisor Instructions;

c. Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates;

d. Failure to Follow Leave Procedures;

e. Failure to Follow Policy (including Failure to Follow Post Orders);

f. Unprofessional Conduct; or

g. Inattention to Duty.

The list of included offenses may be updated as needed. Notification of changes will be circulated by memorandum from the Chief, Office of Internal Affairs.

• MDP Procedures

a. A Misconduct Diversion Agreement is the standardized document utilized in this

program and can be found on the OIA page of the Bureau’s intranet site. The agreement allows a qualifying staff member to immediately take responsibility for alleged misconduct. The staff member further agrees to a pre-designated disciplinary action based on the number of prior agreements the staff member has signed within two years of the alleged misconduct.

b. Upon identification of the underlying facts supporting an allegation as a candidate for

inclusion in this program by the CEO or designee, a meeting will be convened with the CEO’s designee and the staff member. The staff member will be provided the

opportunity to either accept or decline the MDP, essentially choosing to either refer the case to OIA, or immediately accept responsibility and proceed with the corresponding disciplinary action.

c. The MDP is a voluntary program for both CEOs and staff. If either party prefers to

allow the allegation to be referred to OIA for investigation, the standard investigative process will commence.

d. Staff can either accept the agreement, at which time the local Human Resource

department would immediately process the agreed upon discipline; or the staff member can reject the agreement, at which time the predicating information and the declined agreement would be provided to the local SIA to prepare a referral to OIA for the underlying allegations.

e. Staff who enter a diversion agreement voluntarily waive any right to challenge the

discipline imposed under the diversion program in any administrative or judicial forum. This includes, but is not limited to a formal grievance, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Special Counsel, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, any United States District Court, and/or any administrative or judicial forum with original or appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary matters.

f. All signed agreements will be provided to the local SIA who will forward to the OIA

monitoring agent for a given institution/location. Agreement forms will be provided whether staff accepts or declines the agreement, and the staff member cannot reverse the agreement once a matter has been referred to OIA. If the staff member declines the agreement, they cannot then accept the agreement once an investigation has been opened.

g. The CEO’s designee will forward all agreements and predicating information to the

SIA upon acceptance or declination by the staff subject. OIA will file all agreements in the database for record keeping.

• OIA will be the subject matter expert for this program. All questions regarding implementation or whether a matter qualifies for the program should be addressed to either the institution’s monitoring agent or the SSA assigned to the respective regional office.
• Irrefutable Evidence
• In circumstances where there is evidence of misconduct so clear an investigation is not necessary to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that misconduct has occurred, the CEO may consult with the Bureau’s ELB to determine whether it is in the best interest of the Bureau to move forward with disciplinary or adverse action in advance of a completed investigation.
• Even where such circumstances exist, a referral to OIA must be completed and submitted in accordance with Section 4(b) of this program statement. The CEO/SIA will annotate in the BP-A0715, Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs)(In Preparation of Telephonic Report) form, under “Describe any action taken locally prior to OIA referral: Are local,

state, or federal authorities involved?” such irrefutable evidence has been reviewed and discussed with ELB and their ultimate determination as to whether the preponderance standard has been met.

REFERENCES

Program Statements Special Investigative Supervisors Manual Standards of Employee Conduct Employee and Labor Management Relations Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program

Bureau Forms Prescribed by 1210.26 BP-A0194 Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information BP-A0595 Polygraph Authorization BP-A0715 Referral of Incident (Internal Affairs) (In Preparation of Telephonic Report) BP-A0773 Warning and Assurance to Contract Employee Required to Provide Information BP-A0979 Inmate Polygraph Authorization

Federal Statutes 5 U.S.C. § 552a 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) 18 U.S.C. § 921 18 U.S.C. § 2241 18 U.S.C. § 4004 34 U.S.C. § 30301–30309

Federal Regulations 28 C.F.R., Part 115

Federal Case Law Kalkines v. United States, 473 F.2d 1391, (Ct. Cl. 1973)

Other Forms SF-50 Notification of Personnel Action

ACA Standards Performance-Based Standards and Expected Practices for Adult Correctional Institutions (5th Edition): 5-ACI-1C-32 Performance Based Standards and Expected Practices for Adult Local Detention Facilities (5th edition): 5-ALDF-7C-02

Records Retention Requirements Requirements and retention guidance for records and information applicable to this program are available in the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS) on the Bureau’s intranet site.

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026