Incident Report

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

Form number	BP-A0288
Title as printed	INCIDENT REPORT
Form-face date	AUG 11
Prescribed by	“Prescribed by P5270”
Replaces	“Replaces BP-S288.052 Of MAY 94”
Governing Program Statement	5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program (July 8, 2011), as amended by Change Notice CN-1 (November 18, 2020)
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart A (§§ 541.1–541.8)
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3)
Published by BOP?	Yes — https://www.bop.gov/policy/forms/BP_A0288.pdf
Pages / structure	2 pages; Parts I (items 1–16), II (17–21), III (22–27)
Distribution as printed	“ORIGINAL-Central File record; COPY-1- DHO; COPY-2- Inmate After UDC Action; COPY-3- Inmate within 24 hours of Part I Preparation.”
Privacy Act notice on the form	None
False-statement warning on the form	None
Inmate signature line	None on either page

Checked against the BOP form set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify

The BP-A0288 is the charging document in the federal prison disciplinary system: a two-page form on which a staff member states what a person is accused of doing, a committee records what it decided, and an investigator records what was found. Nobody in custody signs it or writes on it — all twenty-seven numbered blocks are completed by staff, which is why reading it correctly is the difference between answering the charge that was written and the one you assumed.

The policy behind the form is explained on the Inmate Discipline Program page, and what happens at a hearing in inmate discipline proceedings. Because a large share of these forms begin with a urine test, drug testing and urine surveillance is the companion page for that fact pattern.

What this form is

The regulation states that “The discipline process starts when staff witness or reasonably believe that you committed a prohibited act. A staff member will issue you an incident report describing the incident and the prohibited act(s) you are charged with committing.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). That regulation binds; the form itself is prescribed by a Program Statement, which is the Bureau’s instruction to staff rather than law.

The form travels. The same sheet picks up entries at three stages — the charge, the investigation, the committee’s action — and finishes in the central file. That is why the item numbers are not in chronological order: Part II is printed above Part III, but the investigation happens first. The instruction at the foot of page 1 puts the rest plainly: “INSTRUCTIONS: All items outside heavy rule are for staff use only. Begin entries with the number 1 and work up. Entries not completed will be voided by staff.” Reproduced from BP-A0288, p. 1.

The twenty-seven blocks

The whole form in its printed order, each label exactly as BOP prints it, and who fills it in. It is a fillable PDF — labels extract cleanly, ruled boxes and check-lines do not — so every block is identified by its label, never by position.

#	Block label as printed	Part	Completed by
1–8	Institution: · Inmate’s Name · Register Number · Date of Incident · Time · Place of Incident · Assignment · Unit	I	Reporting employee
9	Incident	I	Reporting employee
10	Prohibited Act Code(s)	I	Reporting employee
11	Description Of Incident (Date: ____ Time: ____ Staff became aware of incident)	I	Reporting employee
12	Typed Name/Signature of Reporting Employee	I	Reporting employee
13	Date And Time	I	Reporting employee
14	Incident Report Delivered to Above Inmate By (Type Name/Signature)	I	Delivering staff member
15	Date Incident Report Delivered	I	Delivering staff member
16	Time Incident Report Delivered	I	Delivering staff member
17	Comments of Inmate to Committee Regarding Above Incident	II	UDC
18	A. It is the finding of the committee that you: / B. / C.	II	UDC
19	Committee Decision is Based on Specific Evidence as Follows:	II	UDC
20	Committee action and/or recommendation if referred to DHO (Contingent upon DHO finding inmate committed prohibited act)	II	UDC
21	Date And Time Of Action	II	UDC Chairman
22	Date And Time Investigation Began	III	Investigating Officer
23	Inmate Advised Of Right To Remain Silent	III	Investigating Officer
24	Inmate statement and attitude	III	Investigating Officer
25	Other facts about the incident, statements of those persons present at scene, disposition of evidence, etc.	III	Investigating Officer
26	Investigator’s comments and conclusions	III	Investigating Officer
27	Action taken	III	Investigating Officer

Block labels reproduced verbatim from BP-A0288, pp. 1–2. Role attributions are from Program Statement 5270.09 at pp. 18–21 and 25–26.

Part I — Incident Report (items 1–16)

Items 1–8 place the incident. Two carry weight later: item 4 (Date of Incident) is not necessarily the date staff learned of it — item 11 has a separate blank for that, and the gap is where delivery-timing questions live — and item 6 is what an evidence-preservation request has to name.

Item 10 is the one to read first. Item 9 states the incident in words; item 10 gives the code, and the code sets the severity level, which sets the track. Greatest (100-series) and High (200-series) acts cannot be informally resolved and must go to the Discipline Hearing Officer; Moderate (300-series) and Low (400-series) can be resolved by the committee or informally. PS 5270.09 at p. 21.

Item 11 decides the case. The Program Statement instructs that its description “should contain all facts known by the employee that are not confidential,” that the employee “lists persons (staff, inmates, others) at the scene, and physical evidence,” and — the sentence worth underlining — that “The description of the incident provides the inmate with specific evidence for which he/she may prepare a defense.” Two further instructions bind staff: “References to attachments and other investigative materials should not be identified in Section 11 of the report,” and, in the Bureau’s own fighting example, staff “should describe in Section 11 specific actions by each inmate; e.g., throwing punches to the head with a closed fist.” PS 5270.09 at p. 18. An item 11 reading only “inmates were observed fighting” has not done what the policy asks.

Items 14–16 record delivery — who handed it over, on what date, at what time — and they are the most contested squares on the form, the only record of when the clocks started. The regulation provides that “You will ordinarily receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your involvement in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). Note ordinarily: for incidents referred for criminal prosecution, “the incident report should then be delivered to the inmate by the end of the next business day” after release for administrative processing. PS 5270.09 at p. 19.

Part II — Committee Action (items 17–21)

Part II is the Unit Discipline Committee’s record. The UDC “will ordinarily review the incident report within five work days after it is issued, not counting the day it was issued, weekends, and holidays.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(c). Item 17 is the only block carrying the accused person’s words, and the committee writes it down — whatever appears there is what the record will show.

Item 18 — the finding, the referral, and the appeal advisory — is printed in two columns:

18. A. It is the finding of the committee that you: ____ Committed the Prohibited Act as charged. ____ Did not Commit a Prohibited Act. ____ Committed Prohibited Act Code(s) ________

B. ____ The Committee is referring the Charge(s) to the DHO for further Hearing.

C. ____ The Committee advised the inmate of its finding and of the right to file an appeal within 20 calendar days.

Reproduced verbatim from BP-A0288, p. 1.

Three things to notice. The third line of 18.A lets the committee find a different code than the one charged in item 10: the regulation permits a finding that you committed “the prohibited act(s) charged, and/or a similar prohibited act(s) as described in the incident report.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(a)(1). Box 18.B is the referral to the DHO. And 18.C carries the only appeal deadline printed anywhere on the form: 20 calendar days, which is the deadline for a formal Request “on the appropriate form (BP-9) … following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). How it runs on a particular set of facts is a question for counsel — the form does not calculate it, and neither will we.

Item 19 — “Committee Decision is Based on Specific Evidence as Follows.” The regulation requires a decision “based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(e). The constitutional floor is long settled: Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), held that revocation of good time does not satisfy due process “unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” An item 19 reciting only “the incident report” does very little work.

Item 21 carries a certification beside the date field: “(The UDC Chairman’s signature certifies who sat on the UDC and that the completed report accurately reflects the UDC proceedings.)” All members must sign, and none may be a “victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(b); PS 5270.09 at p. 26.

The committee cannot impose the heaviest sanctions. Under the current regulation it may impose the sanctions in Tables 1 and 2 “except loss of good conduct time credit, FSA Time Credits, disciplinary segregation, or monetary fines.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(f). Those are the DHO’s — which is why a check in box 18.B matters more than one in 18.A.

Part III — Investigation (items 22–27)

Part III is page 2, and it never reaches the person charged. The Program Statement is explicit: “The inmate does not receive a copy of the investigation (Sections 23 through 27 of the incident report).” But if the case goes to the DHO, “the DHO must give a copy of the investigation and other relevant materials to the inmate’s staff representative, if requested, for use on the inmate’s behalf.” PS 5270.09 at p. 21. That is the strongest practical reason to request a staff representative — and it is why family reading a mailed copy are reading pages that stop at item 21.

Item 23 — the advisory, printed in full on the form:

“23. Inmate Advised Of Right To Remain Silent: You are advised of your right to remain silent at all stages of the discipline process. Your silence may be used to draw an adverse inference against you at any stage of the discipline process. Your silence alone may not be used to support a finding that you have committed a prohibited act.

The Inmate Was Advised Of The Above Right By ____________ At (Date/time) ________”

Reproduced verbatim from BP-A0288, p. 2.

That is not a Miranda warning, and the regulation says the same thing the form does. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b)(1)(B). What it means in a given case — particularly where the same conduct is being looked at for criminal prosecution — is a decision to make with a lawyer and not from a form.

Item 24 is headed “Inmate statement and attitude” — the word “attitude” is on the form, and the block holds the investigator’s characterization. Item 25 captures other facts, witness statements and “disposition of evidence”; policy tells the investigator that “If the inmate requests exculpatory evidence, such as video or audio surveillance, the investigator must make every effort to review and preserve the evidence.” PS 5270.09 at p. 20. Items 26 and 27 hold the investigator’s conclusions and the action taken, closing with the investigator’s printed name, signature and title.

What the form does not carry, and where the copies go

Neither page carries a Privacy Act notice, and nothing warns the person charged about making a false statement — unsurprising, since there is nowhere on the form for that person to write. Only two time limits are printed on the document: the 20 calendar days in box 18.C, and “within 24 hours of Part I Preparation” in the distribution line. The five-work-day UDC review, the 24-hour notice before a DHO hearing and the investigation timeframes live only in the regulation and the Program Statement.

The distribution line reads, verbatim: “DISTRIBUTE: ORIGINAL-Central File record; COPY-1- DHO; COPY-2- Inmate After UDC Action; COPY-3- Inmate within 24 hours of Part I Preparation.” Reproduced from BP-A0288, p. 1. Two copies are owed to the person charged — one at delivery, one after committee action — and both are worth keeping and sending home. The original goes to the inmate central file, where a sustained charge stays and can be retrieved later through a records request.

Where people get stuck when the incident report copy is late

The copy never arrives, or arrives late. Items 14, 15 and 16 are the record. If they are blank, or the times do not match the incident, that is a documented fact to put into the administrative remedy in writing — a fact to preserve, not a conclusion. Courts assess prejudice; this page predicts nothing.

The description in item 11 is too thin to answer. Notice exists so the person can prepare: Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), held that written notice must “inform him of the charges and … enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a defense,” with “no less than 24 hours” before the appearance. A vague item 11 is a notice problem, and it belongs on the record before the hearing.

The evidence disappears. Institutional video is often overwritten within days, so ask for preservation in writing — by camera location and time window — through an Inmate Request to Staff if that is the available channel.

The sanction touches release timing. Good conduct time and First Step Act time credits are both reachable by DHO sanctions — the point at which an incident report stops being a prison-management issue and becomes a sentence issue. It is also where the Special Housing Unit usually enters the picture.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: In a discipline matter we start with the form and the clocks, not the story: item 10 before item 11; item 4, the parenthetical date in item 11 and item 15 compared against each other; whether item 19 identifies evidence or just re-cites the report; and whether every UDC member signed item 21.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Incident Report Form

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