By Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA — Managing Director, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C.
Program Statement 5890.13 at a glance
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Program Statement | 5890.13 |
| Subject | SENTRY — National On-Line Automated Information System |
| Edition date | December 14, 1999 |
| Office of primary interest | IPD (PS 5890.13 at p. 1) |
| Supersedes | PS 5890.12, same subject (10/8/1996) (PS 5890.13 at p. 3) |
| Directives referenced | PS 1221.66, Directives Management Manual; PS 1232.05, Personal Computers (PS 5890.13 at p. 3) |
| Signed by | Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director (PS 5890.13 at p. 4) |
| Length | Four pages |
| Official PDF | PS 5890.13 (bop.gov) |
Checked against the Bureau’s published policy set · 8 September 2026. PS 5890.13 remains in the current program statement set and has not been superseded.
The projected release date, the good conduct time balance, the custody classification point score, the First Step Act time credit posture, the disciplinary record — all of it is recorded in, and some of it calculated by, a single Bureau of Prisons system called SENTRY. When someone disputes one of those numbers, the number came out of SENTRY. Program Statement 5890.13 is the four-page 1999 directive that created it, and it is still in force. It will not tell you what any particular screen means. Understanding why it will not is the most useful thing on this page.
On this page
What SENTRY is
The Program Statement answers the first question everyone asks in a parenthetical: “SENTRY (not an acronym, but the generic name of the system) provides for most Bureau system-wide operational and management information requirements. It encompasses several program-specific modules such as financial management and population management” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). It is not an initialism. It is a name.
The word that matters is modules. SENTRY is not one database with one screen but a set of program-specific applications on a common system, each belonging to the Bureau discipline that uses it. That is why a case manager, a records officer, and a psychologist all say they are “in SENTRY” while looking at different information, and why no one person at an institution can answer every SENTRY question.
The policy also dates the architecture. The Office of Information Systems began developing SENTRY in the mid-1970s; “[t]he first installation occurred at FCI Petersburg in 1978. By 1981, SENTRY was available at all Bureau facilities” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). One further sentence is the Bureau’s own statement about who sees this data: “Currently, SENTRY is also available to several Department of Justice agencies and offices of the U.S. Probation Service” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). Access is not confined to the Bureau of Prisons.
What Program Statement 5890.13 does
Two jobs, both stated up front: “To designate SENTRY as the Bureau’s national on-line automated information system and establish the procedure for the development of and updates to written instructions for SENTRY modules” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). Section 5 makes the designation flat — “SENTRY is the Bureau’s primary on-line automated information system” — and the second objective is “[t]o ensure that accurate, clearly written and up-to-date instructions are developed, maintained and published for each SENTRY module” (PS 5890.13 at pp. 2–3).
This is a governance document, not an operating manual. It describes no module’s contents: no list of fields, no explanation of what a release-date entry means, no inventory of what the Bureau records about a person. That silence is not an oversight. Two mechanisms in the policy produce it, and both are worth knowing.
Where the instructions are, and why the codes are not published
The first mechanism moves the instructions out of the public policy set. “Written instructions for all SENTRY modules will be published as TRMs which explain the use of the system and index all applicable codes. All SENTRY TRMs and code tables will be made available in electronic format through BOPDOCS” (PS 5890.13 at p. 3). So the document that explains a SENTRY screen exists — it is a Technical Reference Manual, and TRMs are real, numbered, dated documents. The Bureau’s central file policy cites one by name: “TRM 5802.02 SENTRY General Use Technical Reference Manual (7/10/00)” (PS 5800.17 at p. 15). But BOPDOCS is internal. TRMs are not posted alongside program statements. This changed at some point: SENTRY instructions “were distributed as Program Statements and Program Manuals” before the TRM system took over (PS 5890.13 at p. 1).
The second mechanism is the more consequential, and it is two lines long: “SENTRY codes may not be published in Program Statements that are not classified as Limited Official Use (LOU). In non-LOU Program Statements, only the descriptive phrase of the SENTRY operation may be published” (PS 5890.13 at p. 3).
That rule explains a pattern in Bureau policy. Public program statements name SENTRY operations in words while withholding the codes staff actually key. The First Step Act policy directs that participation be “documented in SENTRY using FSA-specific assignments” and that staff “enter the applicable decline code in SENTRY” — the operation, never the code (PS 5410.01 at pp. 9, 12). The discipline policy notes that for certain prohibited acts “SENTRY allows three additional characters (fields),” without saying what goes in them (PS 5270.09 at p. 42). The practical point cuts the other way, though: the descriptive phrase is expressly publishable, so asking for the descriptive phrase of the operation behind a decision is a request framed in the Bureau’s own vocabulary.
Who runs SENTRY
Section 6 splits responsibility three ways. The Information, Policy and Public Affairs Division gatekeeps new systems: “IPPA approval must be obtained for the acquisition or development and installation of any national system (other than SENTRY)” used in Bureau operations (PS 5890.13 at p. 3). The Office of Information Systems owns the machinery — “[t]he development, maintenance, and support of SENTRY is the responsibility of OIS,” which also “review[s] and approve[s] all SENTRY TRMs” and provides the code tables (PS 5890.13 at p. 4).
The instructions, though, belong to the program office. “Program disciplines using a specific SENTRY module will develop user instructions as TRMs,” which “indicate how the application works, what it is designed to accomplish and clearly explain to field staff the operational use of the module.” That office “will maintain the TRM working file and is responsible for the initiation, development and review of TRM changes/updates,” and TRMs issue jointly from the Assistant Director of IPPA and the Assistant Director of the division housing it (PS 5890.13 at p. 4).
The takeaway is that a SENTRY question is not an IT question. The substantive program office writes and keeps the instructions for its own module — so a sentence computation entry, a designation point score, and a disciplinary entry each belong to a different discipline, with its own manual and its own chain of review.
What SENTRY holds, in the Bureau’s own words
PS 5890.13 names only two example modules. The Bureau’s other current program statements say, in their own words, what staff put into SENTRY and what the system does with it.
Designation and custody classification. Staff “enter information from the sentencing court, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorneys Office or other prosecuting authority and the U.S. Probation Office about the inmate into a computer database (SENTRY),” and “SENTRY then calculates a point score for that inmate which (for example, 18 points) is then matched with a commensurate security level institution” (PS 5100.08 at pp. 14–15). The score is computed by the system from data keyed off outside documents.
Good conduct time. Before awarding it, “staff shall review the SENTRY disciplinary log to determine if any GCT had been disallowed during the preceding anniversary period,” after which “the GCT SENTRY data base shall be updated” and a signed, dated copy goes in the file (PS 5880.28 at p. 89). Not every figure on the screen is an award: staff “may enter any number of days desired into the SENTRY data base at any time, except on the Vested Date, to learn a prisoner’s projected release date for release planning purposes,” and “[t]his type of entry into the SENTRY data base does not constitute a vested award of GCT” (PS 5880.28 at p. 99).
First Step Act time credits. Staff “enter the appropriate FSA eligibility assignment into SENTRY,” participation is “documented in SENTRY using FSA-specific assignments,” and where credits affect release “the inmate will have a conditional release method entered into SENTRY” (PS 5410.01 at pp. 9, 11, 22).
Discipline. “The Lieutenant will enter the incident report into SENTRY” (PS 5270.09 at p. 18), and after a hearing “[t]he DHO ensures that the required information is entered into SENTRY in the inmate’s Chronological Disciplinary Record” (PS 5270.09 at p. 35).
Administrative remedies. The clerk logs each filing “into the SENTRY index as received on that date” and writes “the ‘Remedy ID’ as assigned by SENTRY on the form” (PS 1330.18 at p. 9); the receipt “is generated via SENTRY” (PS 1330.18 at p. 3). That policy lists PS 5890.13 among its referenced directives (PS 1330.18 at p. 2) — the remedy process runs on this system.
The central file. The “SENTRY Sentence Computation Record” is among the documents kept in the inmate central file (PS 5800.17 at pp. 7, 16). A SENTRY output therefore exists on paper, in a file there is a route to inspect.
What SENTRY means for you
If you are the person inside: the number has an owner
The number you are disputing came from a system with an owner, an instruction manual, and a paper output. The paper is the accessible part: the SENTRY Sentence Computation Record is a central file document (PS 5800.17 at pp. 7, 16), and the sentence monitoring computation sheet is what most people need in hand before any conversation about a release date goes anywhere.
Next, know what is askable. The codes are restricted, but “only the descriptive phrase of the SENTRY operation may be published” in non-restricted documents (PS 5890.13 at p. 3) — meaning the phrase itself is not restricted. An Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) asking which SENTRY entry a decision rests on, and what its descriptive phrase is, asks for something the policy contemplates being explained. And do not assume a screen figure is final: the Bureau’s own policy separates exploratory entries made “for release planning purposes” from vested awards (PS 5880.28 at p. 99).
If you are a family member: when the release date changes
Families most often describe a release date that changes, or two dates from two staff members, with no explanation of either. The structure above is the explanation: different modules belong to different disciplines, the instructions are internal, and the codes cannot be printed in ordinary policy — so staff often genuinely cannot show you the document that would settle it.
What helps is assembling paper. Ask your person to request the sentence monitoring computation sheet and to note the date it printed, because entries change. Keep in mind too that SENTRY “is also available to several Department of Justice agencies and offices of the U.S. Probation Service” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1) — the record follows a person past the institution. Nothing here says any particular date, score, or credit total is wrong, or that it can be changed; those are determinations the Bureau makes on the individual record.
If you are counsel: SENTRY records
Three points carry weight in a records dispute. First, the LOU rule: when a response cites a code without explanation, PS 5890.13 at p. 3 is authority that the descriptive phrase of a SENTRY operation is publishable in non-restricted documents, which recasts a request for explanation as ordinary rather than as a demand for restricted material. Second, the TRM structure: written instructions for every module exist, they “index all applicable codes,” and the office of primary interest “will maintain the TRM working file” (PS 5890.13 at pp. 3–4) — a far better-targeted request than a general one for “SENTRY records.”
Third, the correction obligation. The Bureau’s central file policy provides that “Bureau reports, data, or SENTRY transactions should be corrected within a reasonable period of time after identification of an inaccuracy” (PS 5800.17 at p. 11). That passage sits in the policy’s treatment of challenges to information in the file, and it directs staff to review and correct downstream documents — the Inmate Load and Security Designation form (BP-A0337), the Custody Classification form (BP-A0338), progress reports — once an inaccuracy is established. The duty is stated; the work is establishing the inaccuracy, and that usually means documents from the criminal case rather than argument at the institution.
Where people get stuck when SENTRY and the judgment disagree
A date in SENTRY that does not match the judgment
The instinct is to argue about the date. The better move is to work back to the input. SENTRY computations run on data keyed from source documents — for designation, “information from the sentencing court, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorneys Office or other prosecuting authority and the U.S. Probation Office” (PS 5100.08 at p. 14). A wrong output usually means a wrong or missing input, and an input is a document someone can produce. Get both, put them side by side in writing, and identify the mismatch — the correction duty at PS 5800.17 at p. 11 attaches once an inaccuracy is identified, so identification is the work.
Requesting your own SENTRY records
Requests for “my SENTRY file” go nowhere, because no such object exists — SENTRY is a set of modules, not a file. Name the specific output instead. Policy names several: the SENTRY Sentence Computation Record, kept in the central file (PS 5800.17 at pp. 7, 16); the Chronological Disciplinary Record, where hearing results are entered (PS 5270.09 at p. 35); the SENTRY disciplinary log consulted before good conduct time is awarded (PS 5880.28 at p. 89). Naming the document is the difference between a request that can be filled and one that cannot.
When staff say the computer is right
PS 5890.13 supplies a quiet answer. Throughout, SENTRY is a system staff operate under written instructions the Bureau requires to be “accurate, clearly written and up-to-date” for each module (PS 5890.13 at p. 2). It is nowhere described as an independent authority. Every figure was placed there by a person following a manual, or computed from data a person entered. The sentence computation policy makes the point concretely: some entries are exploratory, and “[t]his type of entry into the SENTRY data base does not constitute a vested award of GCT” (PS 5880.28 at p. 99). “The computer says” is not a complete answer inside the Bureau’s own policy. The follow-up is which entry, made by whom, from what document, under which module’s instructions.
A code nobody will explain
Staff who decline to explain a code may be right that they cannot publish it; that is what PS 5890.13 at p. 3 provides. But the same sentence permits the descriptive phrase, so pitch the request at the phrase rather than the code. Where a denial or a computation rests on an entry whose meaning is never explained in any form, document the gap in writing at each step. The formal route is the Administrative Remedy Program — itself run through this system, with filings logged into the SENTRY index and assigned a Remedy ID (PS 1330.18 at p. 9). Keep every receipt; it is generated by the same system whose entries you are questioning (PS 1330.18 at p. 3).
Applied insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: When someone brings us a release date they believe is wrong, we rarely start with the date. We start with the computation sheet, the judgment, and the sheet’s print date, because a SENTRY output is only as good as the document it was keyed from. The usual problem is not arithmetic — it is a source document that never reached the records office.
Related BOP policy on SENTRY and sentence data
| Page | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Sentence Computation Manual (PS 5880.28) | How release dates and good conduct time are computed and keyed |
| Challenging a BOP sentence computation | When the computed date does not match the judgment |
| Sentence monitoring computation sheet | The SENTRY output to get in hand first |
| Good conduct time | The award, the vesting date, and disallowance |
| First Step Act time credits (PS 5410.01) | Where FSA eligibility and participation are recorded |
| Security designation and custody classification (PS 5100.08) | The point score SENTRY calculates |
| Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) | Incident reports and the Chronological Disciplinary Record |
| Central file and records | What is in the file, and correction of inaccurate data |
| Administrative Remedy Program (PS 1330.18) | Remedy IDs, receipts, and the BP-9 route |
| Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) | The informal written request that starts most of this |
| FOIA and Privacy Act requests | The route for records the institution will not produce |
| All BOP program statements | The full policy index |
Frequently Asked Questions About SENTRY
What does SENTRY stand for?
Nothing. The Program Statement says so directly: “SENTRY (not an acronym, but the generic name of the system) provides for most Bureau system-wide operational and management information requirements” (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). It is the name of the Bureau of Prisons’ national on-line automated information system.
Can I get a copy of my SENTRY records?
There is no single “SENTRY file,” because SENTRY is a set of program-specific modules rather than one document (PS 5890.13 at p. 1). Name the specific output instead. Policy identifies several: the SENTRY Sentence Computation Record, kept in the inmate central file (PS 5800.17 at pp. 7, 16); the Chronological Disciplinary Record (PS 5270.09 at p. 35); and the SENTRY disciplinary log reviewed before good conduct time is awarded (PS 5880.28 at p. 89).
Why will staff not tell me what a SENTRY code means?
Policy restricts publication of the codes themselves: “SENTRY codes may not be published in Program Statements that are not classified as Limited Official Use (LOU). In non-LOU Program Statements, only the descriptive phrase of the SENTRY operation may be published” (PS 5890.13 at p. 3). The descriptive phrase is not restricted, so a written request framed around the descriptive phrase asks for something the policy expressly permits to be published.
Where are the actual instructions for using SENTRY?
In Technical Reference Manuals. “Written instructions for all SENTRY modules will be published as TRMs which explain the use of the system and index all applicable codes. All SENTRY TRMs and code tables will be made available in electronic format through BOPDOCS” (PS 5890.13 at p. 3). TRMs are numbered and dated — the Bureau’s central file policy cites “TRM 5802.02 SENTRY General Use Technical Reference Manual (7/10/00)” (PS 5800.17 at p. 15) — but they are distributed internally, not in the public program statement set.
Is Program Statement 5890.13 still current?
Yes. It is dated December 14, 1999, signed by then-Director Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, and remains in the Bureau’s current program statement set as of the date noted below. It rescinded PS 5890.12 (10/8/1996) (PS 5890.13 at pp. 3–4). Its age reflects its subject: it governs the designation of the system and the process for maintaining instructions, not any module’s contents, and those instructions are updated separately through the TRM process it establishes.
Does the Bureau have to correct a wrong entry in SENTRY?
The Bureau’s central file policy addresses correction directly: “Bureau reports, data, or SENTRY transactions should be corrected within a reasonable period of time after identification of an inaccuracy” (PS 5800.17 at p. 11). That provision appears in the policy’s treatment of challenges to information in the inmate central file, and it directs staff to review and correct downstream documents such as the Inmate Load and Security Designation form (BP-A0337) and the Custody Classification form (BP-A0338) once an inaccuracy is established. The difficulty is establishing the inaccuracy, which ordinarily requires the underlying source document rather than argument at the institution.
Checked against the Bureau’s published policy set on 8 September 2026.
Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026