Prison Disciplinary Infraction

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

A federal disciplinary case starts when a staff member writes an incident report — inside, everyone calls it a “shot” — and ends with a finding by either a two-person Unit Discipline Committee or a single Discipline Hearing Officer. The charge is one of roughly 90 numbered prohibited acts in 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, sorted into four severity levels, and the number on the form determines what the Bureau can take: good conduct time, First Step Act time credits, segregation, visits, phone, commissary, your job, and your custody score.

This page walks the process from the first piece of paper to the last appeal, reproduces the complete prohibited-acts code and sanction schedule from the regulation itself, and tells you where these cases are actually won and lost. It is written for the person holding the incident report and for the family member who just got a phone call about it.

The disciplinary process at a glance

Stage	Who acts	Ordinary time limit	Governing text
Incident report delivered	Reporting staff / Lieutenant	Within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of your alleged involvement	28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a)
Investigating officer appointed	Lieutenant or Warden’s designee	Ordinarily within 24 hours of the incident report	PS 5270.09 at p. 19
Investigation completed	Investigating officer	Within 24 hours after appointment	PS 5270.09 at p. 19
UDC review	Two or more unit staff	Ordinarily within five work days after issuance — not counting the day it was issued, weekends, or holidays	28 C.F.R. § 541.7(c)
Written notice of DHO hearing	UDC / DHO	At least 24 hours before the hearing (waivable by you)	28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c)
DHO hearing	One certified hearing officer	No fixed outer limit in the rule	28 C.F.R. § 541.8
DHO written report delivered	DHO	Ordinarily within 15 work days of the decision	PS 5270.09 at p. 35
Appeal filed	You	20 calendar days from the signed response for the BP-10 appeal to the Regional Director; 30 calendar days from the Regional Director’s signed response for the final BP-11 appeal to the General Counsel	28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a)

Sources: 28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart A and BOP Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program (CN-1, Nov. 18, 2020). Current as of September 2026.

Where the rules come from, and why the difference matters

Congress gave the Bureau of Prisons authority to provide for the “protection, instruction, and discipline” of federal prisoners in 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3). The Bureau turned that authority into a binding regulation — 28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart A — and then into a staff manual, Program Statement 5270.09.

That distinction is not academic, and it is the first thing to check in any disciplinary appeal. The regulation binds the Bureau. The Program Statement is the Bureau’s own instruction for applying it — agency policy, not law. When the two say different things, the regulation controls, and there is at least one place in the current discipline scheme where they plainly say different things. We come back to that below under what changed.

The regulation applies to “sentenced and unsentenced inmates in Bureau custody,” including people held as witnesses or detainees and D.C. Code felony offenders. It does not apply to federal prisoners housed in a state or county facility, who are disciplined under that facility’s rules instead (PS 5270.09 at p. 2). Our explainer on BOP Program Statement 5270.09 covers the policy document itself in more detail.

The Bureau is required to hand you three documents shortly after you arrive at an institution: a summary of the discipline system, a statement of inmate rights and responsibilities, and the prohibited-acts table itself. Receipt is noted on the intake screening form and kept in your central file (PS 5270.09 at p. 6). If you never got them, say so in writing — it is worth having in the record.

Five principles run through every disciplinary action, and each one is a potential argument. Sanctions “will not be imposed in a capricious or retaliatory manner.” Staff must control behavior “in an impartial and consistent manner.” Corporal punishment of any kind is prohibited. Discipline is meant to regulate behavior, not to settle scores. And a staff member who was a victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident cannot sit in judgment on it (28 C.F.R. § 541.1; PS 5270.09 at p. 4).

The prohibited acts code: the complete table

This is the list. It is reproduced from 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1 — the regulation, current through the amendments at 85 FR 66229 (Oct. 19, 2020) and 87 FR 2719 (Jan. 19, 2022). Codes marked “(Not to be used)” are retired but still occupy their numbers.

Aiding, attempting, abetting, or making plans to commit any of these is treated the same as committing the act itself, and gets the letter “A” appended to the code. Planning an escape is Code 102A. Attempting to adulterate food is Code 209A. That is where the query “attempt class A cat 1 off” comes from — it is a 100-series attempt charge.

Greatest severity (100 series)

Code	Prohibited act
100	Killing.
101	Assaulting any person, or an armed assault on the institution’s secure perimeter (used only when serious physical injury has been attempted or accomplished).
102	Escape from escort; escape from any secure or non-secure institution, including community confinement; escape from unescorted community program or activity; escape from outside a secure institution.
103	Setting a fire (charged at this level only when it poses a threat to life or of serious bodily harm, or is in furtherance of a Greatest severity act; otherwise Code 218 or 329).
104	Possession, manufacture, or introduction of a gun, firearm, weapon, sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous chemical, explosive, ammunition, or any instrument used as a weapon.
105	Rioting.
106	Encouraging others to riot.
107	Taking hostage(s).
108	Possession, manufacture, introduction, or loss of a hazardous tool (e.g., hacksaw blade, body armor, maps, handmade rope, escape paraphernalia, portable telephone, pager, or other electronic device).
109	(Not to be used).
110	Refusing to provide a urine sample; refusing to breathe into a Breathalyzer; refusing to take part in other drug-abuse testing.
111	Introduction or making of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed by medical staff.
112	Use of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed by medical staff.
113	Possession of any narcotics, marijuana, drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed by medical staff.
114	Sexual assault of any person, involving non-consensual touching by force or threat of force.
115	Destroying and/or disposing of any item during a search or attempt to search.
196	Use of the mail for an illegal purpose or to commit or further a Greatest category prohibited act.
197	Use of the telephone for an illegal purpose or to commit or further a Greatest category prohibited act.
198	Interfering with a staff member in the performance of duties, most like another Greatest severity act. Used only when no other Greatest charge is accurate.
199	Conduct which disrupts or interferes with security or the orderly running of the institution or the Bureau, most like another Greatest severity act. Used only when no other Greatest charge is accurate.

High severity (200 series)

Code	Prohibited act
200	Escape from a work detail, non-secure institution, or other non-secure confinement, including community confinement, with voluntary return to custody within four hours.
201	Fighting with another person.
202	(Not to be used).
203	Threatening another with bodily harm or any other offense.
204	Extortion; blackmail; protection; demanding or receiving money or anything of value in return for protection, to avoid bodily harm, or under threat of informing.
205	Engaging in sexual acts.
206	Making sexual proposals or threats to another.
207	Wearing a disguise or a mask.
208	Possession of any unauthorized locking device or lock pick; tampering with or blocking any lock (including keys); destroying, altering, interfering with, improperly using, or damaging any security device, mechanism, or procedure.
209	Adulteration of any food or drink.
210, 214, 215, 222, 223	(Not to be used).
211	Possessing any officer’s or staff clothing.
212	Engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration.
213	Encouraging others to refuse to work, or to participate in a work stoppage.
216	Giving or offering an official or staff member a bribe, or anything of value.
217	Giving money to, or receiving money from, any person for the purpose of introducing contraband or any other illegal or prohibited purpose.
218	Destroying, altering, or damaging government property, or the property of another person, having a value in excess of $100.00; or destroying, altering, damaging life-safety devices (e.g., fire alarm) regardless of value.
219	Stealing; theft (including data obtained through unauthorized use of a communications device or unauthorized access to disks, tapes, printouts, or other automated equipment).
220	Demonstrating, practicing, or using martial arts, boxing (except a punching bag), wrestling, or other forms of physical encounter, or military exercises or drill (except drill authorized by staff).
221	Being in an unauthorized area with a person of the opposite sex without staff permission.
224	Assaulting any person (used when less serious physical injury or contact has been attempted or accomplished).
225	Stalking another person through repeated behavior which harasses, alarms, or annoys, after having been previously warned to stop.
226	Possession of stolen property.
227	Refusing to participate in a required physical test or examination unrelated to drug testing (e.g., DNA, HIV, tuberculosis).
228	Tattooing or self-mutilation.
229	Sexual assault of any person, involving non-consensual touching without force or threat of force.
231	Requesting, demanding, pressuring, or otherwise intentionally creating a situation which causes an inmate to produce or display his or her own court documents for any unauthorized purpose to another inmate.
296	Use of the mail for abuses other than criminal activity which circumvent mail monitoring (writing in code, unauthorized means, sending mail for others, fictitious return addresses, special mail abuse).
297	Use of the telephone for abuses other than illegal activity which circumvent staff monitoring of frequency, content, or number called.
298	Interfering with a staff member, most like another High severity act.
299	Conduct which disrupts, most like another High severity act.

Code 231 is worth pausing on. It was added by Change Notice CN-1 on November 18, 2020, and it exists because of the pressure campaign that has become routine on federal compounds: demanding that another person produce his judgment, presentence report, or plea paperwork to prove he did not cooperate. It is a High severity charge. It also tells you something about how much paperwork pressure the Bureau sees, which is relevant to anyone thinking about protective custody or about surviving prison as a sex offender.

Moderate severity (300 series)

Code	Prohibited act
300	Indecent exposure.
301, 322, 323	(Not to be used).
302	Misuse of authorized medication.
303	Possession of money or currency, unless specifically authorized, or in excess of the amount authorized.
304	Loaning of property or anything of value for profit or increased return.
305	Possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt, and not issued through regular channels.
306	Refusing to work or to accept a program assignment.
307	Refusing to obey an order of any staff member (may be charged at greater severity depending on the order — e.g., refusing an order furthering a riot is Code 105).
308	Violating a condition of a furlough.
309	Violating a condition of a community program.
310	Unexcused absence from work or any program assignment.
311	Failing to perform work as instructed by the supervisor.
312	Insolence towards a staff member.
313	Lying or providing a false statement to a staff member.
314	Counterfeiting, forging, or unauthorized reproduction of any document, article of identification, money, security, or official paper.
315	Participating in an unauthorized meeting or gathering.
316	Being in an unauthorized area without staff authorization.
317	Failure to follow safety or sanitation regulations (including chemical instructions, tools, MSDS sheets, OSHA standards).
318	Using any equipment or machinery without staff authorization.
319	Using any equipment or machinery contrary to instructions or posted safety standards.
320	Failing to stand count.
321	Interfering with the taking of count.
324	Gambling.
325	Preparing or conducting a gambling pool.
326	Possession of gambling paraphernalia.
327	Unauthorized contacts with the public.
328	Giving money or anything of value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, another inmate or any other person without staff authorization.
329	Destroying, altering, or damaging government property, or the property of another person, having a value of $100.00 or less.
330	Being unsanitary or untidy; failing to keep one’s person or quarters in accordance with posted standards.
331	Possession, manufacture, introduction, or loss of a non-hazardous tool, equipment, supplies, or other non-hazardous contraband (includes food, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, smoking apparatus and tobacco where prohibited, and unauthorized nutritional/dietary supplements).
332	Smoking where prohibited.
333	Fraudulent or deceptive completion of a skills test (e.g., cheating on a GED or vocational test).
334	Conducting a business; conducting or directing an investment transaction without staff authorization.
335	Communicating gang affiliation; participating in gang-related activities; possession of paraphernalia indicating gang affiliation.
336	Circulating a petition.
396	Use of the mail for abuses other than criminal activity which do not circumvent mail monitoring, or to further a Moderate category act.
397	Use of the telephone for abuses other than illegal activity which do not circumvent staff monitoring, or to further a Moderate category act.
398	Interfering with a staff member, most like another Moderate severity act.
399	Conduct which disrupts, most like another Moderate severity act.

Low severity (400 series)

Code	Prohibited act
400, 401, 403, 405, 406, 408	(Not to be used).
402	Malingering, feigning illness.
404	Using abusive or obscene language.
407	Conduct with a visitor in violation of Bureau regulations.
409	Unauthorized physical contact (e.g., kissing, embracing).
498	Interfering with a staff member, most like another Low severity act.
499	Conduct which disrupts, most like another Low severity act.

Two structural points about this table that decide real cases.

First, the “most like” codes — 198/199, 298/299, 398/399, 498/499 — may be used only when no other charge at that severity level is accurate, and the hearing officer must name the specific listed act the conduct is “most like.” The regulation gives the example: “I find the act of Conduct Which Disrupts (Code 299) to be of High severity level, most comparable to the prohibited act of Engaging in a Group Demonstration (Code 212)” (PS 5270.09 at p. 10). A 199 or 299 finding with no comparator named is an appealable defect, and it is one of the most common ones we see.

Second, several codes shade into each other, and which one gets written matters enormously. Code 218 and Code 329 are the same conduct split at $100.00. Codes 199, 299, and 399 are the Bureau’s designated charges for misuse of electronic messaging (PS 5270.09 at p. 18). A single fight in which a staff member is struck can be charged as both fighting (201) and assault (224 or 101), because acts are “different or separate if they have different elements (time, place, persons involved, actions)” (PS 5270.09 at p. 18). Possession of items over the authorized limit is Code 305, not contraband — a distinction that matters after a shakedown.

Sanctions by severity level

The available sanctions are also part of the regulation, not merely policy. Here is the schedule, reproduced from 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1.

Sanction	Greatest (100)	High (200)	Moderate (300)	Low (400)
A. Recommend parole date rescission or retardation	Available	Available	Available	Not available
B. Forfeit/withhold earned statutory good time or non-vested good conduct time; terminate or disallow extra good time	Up to 100%	Up to 50% or 60 days, whichever is less	Up to 25% or 30 days, whichever is less	Not available
B.1. Disallow good conduct time credit available for the year	Ordinarily 50–75% (27–41 days)	Ordinarily 25–50% (14–27 days)	Ordinarily up to 25% (1–14 days)	Up to 12.5% (1–7 days) on a second same-code violation within 6 months; up to 25% (1–14 days) on a third
B.2. Forfeit earned First Step Act time credits	Up to 41 days per act	Up to 27 days per act	Up to 27 days per act	Up to 7 days (second same-code violation within 6 months); up to 14 days (third)
C. Disciplinary segregation	Up to 12 months	Up to 6 months	Up to 3 months	Not listed
D. Make monetary restitution	Available	Available	Available	Available
E. Monetary fine	Up to $500 or 75% of trust fund balance	Up to $300 or 50%	Up to $100 or 25%	Up to $50 or 12.5%
F. Loss of privileges (visiting, telephone, e-mail, commissary, movies, recreation)	Available	Available	Available	Available
G. Change housing (quarters)	Available	Available	Available	Available
H. Remove from program or group activity	Available	Available	Available	Available
I. Loss of job	Available	Available	Available	Available
J. Impound personal property	Available	Available	Available	Available
K. Confiscate contraband	Available	Available	Available	Available
L. Restrict to quarters	Available	Available	Available	Available
M. Extra duty	Available	Available	Available	Available

Sanction letters and ranges from 28 C.F.R. § 541.3. Fine dollar caps from PS 5270.09 at p. 16. Sanction B.2 was added to the regulation by 87 FR 2719 (Jan. 19, 2022).

Several limits inside this schedule are easy to miss and worth knowing.

• Only the DHO can impose sanctions A through E. The UDC is expressly barred from imposing loss of good conduct time, disciplinary segregation, monetary fines, or monetary restitution (28 C.F.R. § 541.7(f); PS 5270.09 at p. 26). A UDC that writes a fine or a segregation sanction has exceeded its authority.
• Forfeiture or disallowance of good conduct time can never be suspended. Neither can termination or disallowance of extra good time (PS 5270.09 at p. 13).
• Suspensions of any sanction cannot exceed six months, and a suspended sanction can be revoked and executed only if you are found to have committed a later prohibited act (PS 5270.09 at p. 11).
• Loss of recreation privileges may not be imposed on someone already in a Special Housing Unit — that sanction is for general population only (PS 5270.09 at p. 16). A DHO can impose loss of mattress in the SHU from lights-on to lights-off, but staff must return it from lights-off to lights-on. More on how that works in practice on our page about solitary confinement and special housing units.
• Disciplinary segregation for separate acts runs consecutively unless the DHO says otherwise (PS 5270.09 at p. 16).
• Commissary privileges should be suspended until a fine or restitution is paid (PS 5270.09 at p. 16), which reaches into commissary access and, indirectly, into what your family sends.

Mandatory good conduct time loss

For two groups of people, losing good conduct time is not discretionary. Under 28 C.F.R. § 541.4, a “VCCLEA-violent” prisoner (U.S. Code offense on or after Sept. 13, 1994 but before Apr. 26, 1996, involving a crime of violence) and a “PLRA” prisoner (U.S. Code offense on or after Apr. 26, 1996, or D.C. Code offense on or after Aug. 5, 2000) will lose good conduct sentence credit:

Severity level	Mandatory minimum loss	If fewer than 54 days are available for the prorated period
Greatest	At least 41 days per act	At least 75% of available credit
High	At least 27 days per act	At least 50% of available credit
Moderate	At least 14 days, after two or more Moderate acts in the current year	At least 25% of available credit
Low	At least 7 days, after three or more Low acts in the current year	At least 12.5% of available credit

The 54 days figure is the annual good conduct time allowance under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) for people sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987. Once awarded, that credit vests and cannot be disallowed; before award, it can (PS 5270.09 at p. 14). Our page on good conduct time and the policy explainer on good conduct time under the PLRA work through the arithmetic.

The DHO is also told when to go above the guideline: for a “greatly aggravated offense or a repeated violation of another prohibited act within a relatively short time,” which the policy defines as 24 months for a Greatest severity act, 18 months for High, and 12 months for Moderate. A decision above or below the guideline has to be justified in the DHO report (PS 5270.09 at p. 15). If it is not, say so on appeal.

Repeat offenses: Table 2

Committing the same code twice inside a defined window opens up a second schedule, at 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 2.

Severity level	Look-back window (same code)	2nd offense	3rd or more
Low (400)	6 months	Disciplinary segregation up to 1 month; forfeit earned SGT or non-vested GCT up to 10% or 15 days, whichever is less	Any available Moderate severity sanction
Moderate (300)	12 months	Disciplinary segregation up to 6 months; forfeit up to 37.5% or 45 days, whichever is less	Any available High severity sanction
High (200)	18 months	Disciplinary segregation up to 12 months; forfeit up to 75% or 90 days, whichever is less	Any available Greatest severity sanction
Greatest (100)	24 months	Disciplinary segregation up to 18 months	—

The incident report: what the form actually says

The charging document is form BP-A0288, Incident Report — the original is posted at bop.gov. It has three parts, and knowing what belongs in each one is how you spot a defective report.

Part I — Incident Report. Institution, name, register number, date and time of the incident, place, assignment, unit, a plain-English description of the incident, and the prohibited act code or codes. Item 11 is the description; item 12 is the reporting employee’s signature, date and time; items 14 through 16 record who delivered it to you, on what date, at what time. The form’s own distribution block directs “COPY-3 — Inmate within 24 hours of Part I Preparation.”

The description must contain all non-confidential facts known to the employee and must be specific enough that you can prepare a defense. Policy is explicit that “the description of the incident provides the inmate with specific evidence for which he/she may prepare a defense,” and that references to attachments and investigative materials do not belong in section 11 (PS 5270.09 at p. 18). A one-line report that says only “inmate was involved in an altercation” has not done what the rule requires.

Part II — Committee Action. Your comments to the committee, the finding, the specific evidence the finding rests on, any referral to the DHO with recommended sanctions, and the date and time of action. Every UDC member prints and signs. The form itself advises that you have 20 calendar days to appeal.

Part III — Investigation. Date and time the investigation began, the advisement of your right to remain silent, your statement and attitude, other facts and witness statements, disposition of evidence, and the investigator’s comments and conclusions.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The first thing we ask for in a disciplinary case is the complete incident report packet, including Part III, and then we compare the timestamps against the clocks in the regulation. Delivery time versus “staff became aware.” Investigation start versus appointment. UDC date versus issuance date, excluding weekends and holidays. Most people never lay those side by side, and the record either supports the Bureau’s timeline or it does not.

You do not get a copy of the investigation section — sections 23 through 27 — as a matter of course. But if the case goes to the DHO, the DHO must give a copy of the investigation and other relevant materials to your staff representative on request (PS 5270.09 at p. 21). That is the single most useful reason to ask for a staff representative even in a case you think is simple.

The investigation and your right to remain silent

An investigating officer must be a supervisory employee, certified in discipline procedures, who was not the reporting employee and was not otherwise involved. Ordinarily this is a Lieutenant (PS 5270.09 at p. 19).

The investigator must tell you two things: the charges, and that you may remain silent at all stages of the discipline process — but your silence may be used to draw an adverse inference against you, though silence alone cannot be the basis for a finding (28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b)(1)). That is a genuinely difficult rule to navigate, and it is the point at which a lot of avoidable damage gets done.

Two situations change the calculus completely.

When the case may be prosecuted. If it appears the incident may involve criminal prosecution, the investigating officer suspends the investigation, and staff may not question you until the FBI or other agency releases the report for administrative processing. The processing clock is suspended for that entire period, and the report is then delivered by the end of the next business day (PS 5270.09 at pp. 19–20). If you are facing a fresh federal charge arising out of an institutional incident — contraband, assault on a staff member, a phone found in your locker — what you say in a disciplinary investigation is not sealed off from the prosecution. Talk to a lawyer before you talk to the Lieutenant. Our page on attorney-client communications in the Bureau of Prisons explains how to reach counsel from inside.

When the charge rests on a urinalysis. If you say the result comes from a permissible medication, the investigator must contact Health Services to check whether you are prescribed something containing the compound found. If you say it comes from a combination of medications, the investigator must confirm you are authorized to take them and, when necessary, contact the testing laboratory about a possible false positive (PS 5270.09 at p. 20). You can challenge the result; policy says the validity of the testing process is not at issue before the DHO. See our explainer on drug testing and urine surveillance and on alcohol and drugs in federal prison.

There is a third thing worth asking for, in writing, at the investigation stage. If you request exculpatory evidence such as video or audio surveillance, the investigator must make every effort to review and preserve it — and policy says it would be “prudent” to preserve it even without a request (PS 5270.09 at p. 20). Compound cameras overwrite. Ask on day one, name the camera and the time window, and keep a copy of the request.

Informal resolution — and when it is off the table

Moderate (300-level) and Low (400-level) charges can be informally resolved at any stage, and if the incident report is informally resolved it is removed from your records (28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b)(3)). A record of the resolution stays in the Bureau’s system, but the incident report is not filed in your central file (PS 5270.09 at p. 21).

Greatest (100-level) and High (200-level) charges cannot be informally resolved and must go to the DHO. Staff may suspend proceedings up to two calendar weeks while informal resolution is attempted; if it fails, the clocks restart where they stopped. Informal resolution requires both sides to agree, but the decision to offer it is entirely staff’s (PS 5270.09 at p. 21).

Mental health and competency

If it appears at any stage that you are mentally ill, staff must refer you to a mental health professional. Two separate questions follow (28 C.F.R. § 541.6):

• Competency. If you cannot understand the proceedings or assist in your own defense, the proceedings are postponed until you can. If competency is not restored within a reasonable time, the report shows a finding of incompetence.
• Responsibility. You will not be disciplined for conduct committed when, as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, you were unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the act. The finding is entered as “did not commit the prohibited act because he/she was found not mentally responsible.”

Staff may take no disciplinary action against someone a mental health professional finds incompetent or not responsible (PS 5270.09 at p. 22). Generally the UDC initiates the referral, but staff at any stage may make one. If a family member has watched a decompensation from the outside — missed calls, disorganized letters, a sudden move — that is information the unit team and Psychology Services need, and it belongs in writing. See our pages on mental health programs for inmates and on treatment and care of inmates with mental illness.

The Unit Discipline Committee

The UDC is the first hearing. It ordinarily consists of two or more unit staff, none of whom may be a victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise significantly involved. A one-member UDC is permitted when other members are not reasonably available, and only one member is required when policy mandates referral to the DHO anyway. No staff member may sit without completing UDC certification (PS 5270.09 at p. 24).

The UDC can find that you committed the act as charged or a similar act described in the report, find that you did not, or refer the matter to the DHO. Referral is automatic for any Greatest or High severity charge, and for anyone covered by the mandatory good conduct time rule at § 541.4 (28 C.F.R. § 541.7(a)).

You are permitted to appear, in person or by video or telephone at the committee’s discretion, and to make a statement and present documentary evidence. You may waive your appearance — on form BP-A0307 — and the committee will review the report without you. The UDC must document its reasons for excluding you.

The standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and is not preponderance in the ordinary sense. The decision must rest on “at least some facts” and, where the evidence conflicts, on “the greater weight of the evidence” (28 C.F.R. § 541.7(e)). Policy defines “greater weight” as the strength of the evidence — “not to its quantity or to the number of witnesses testifying” (PS 5270.09 at p. 31).

You get a written copy of the UDC’s decision by the close of business the next work day (PS 5270.09 at p. 26). If the UDC holds a full review and finds you did not commit a Moderate or Low severity act, it must expunge the incident report and related documents from your file (PS 5270.09 at p. 27). Ask a unit team member to confirm the expungement actually happened at the next program review — it does not always.

The DHO hearing

The Discipline Hearing Officer is a one-person, independent officer who conducts hearings and imposes sanctions on cases the UDC refers. A DHO may not hold hearings without specialized training and a certification test, and may not hear a case the UDC did not refer. Only the DHO can impose or suspend sanctions A through E (PS 5270.09 at p. 28).

Your procedural rights at this hearing are the ones the Supreme Court identified in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), where the Court held that before a prison may take good-time credits it must give the prisoner “written notice of the charges … to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a defense,” with “no less than 24 hours” to prepare, and must produce “a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons” for the action. Wolff also held that a prisoner “should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals,” while declining to require confrontation, cross-examination, or counsel.

Here is how each of those maps onto the Bureau’s own rules.

Notice. Written notice of the charges at least 24 hours before the hearing. You may waive it, in which case the hearing can be held sooner (28 C.F.R. § 541.8(c)). Waiving is almost never in your interest.

Staff representative. You are entitled to one, and you may request the staff member of your choice so long as that person was not a victim, witness, investigator, or otherwise involved. If your request cannot be filled and you still want a representative, the Warden will appoint one. The Warden must also appoint one if it appears you cannot adequately represent yourself — for example, if you are illiterate or have difficulty understanding the charges (28 C.F.R. § 541.8(d)). Executive staff, the DHO or alternate DHO, the reporting officer, the investigating officer, witnesses, and UDC members are all disqualified (PS 5270.09 at p. 29).

The representative’s job is defined: help you understand the charges and consequences, speak with and schedule witnesses, obtain written statements, help prepare evidence, and appear with you. The DHO must give the representative adequate time to speak with you and interview witnesses, and may order a delay for additional preparation.

Witnesses. You or your representative may request witnesses. The DHO will call witnesses with information directly relevant to the charge who are reasonably available, but need not call adverse witnesses whose testimony is adequately summarized in the report, need not call repetitive witnesses, and may refuse witnesses whose presence would jeopardize security. Where a witness is unavailable, written statements may be requested and considered. The DHO must document the reasons for declining to call a requested witness in the DHO report — or, if the reasons are confidential, in a separate report not available to you (PS 5270.09 at p. 32).

Two rules here get overlooked. A witness who simply does not want to testify is not thereby unavailable: “The DHO may not refuse to call a witness who is reasonably available … and has information relevant to the charge solely because the witness (staff or inmate) does not wish to appear.” And you may request an outside witness; written statements from outside witnesses may be used in place of live testimony (PS 5270.09 at p. 32).

Questioning. Only the DHO may directly question witnesses. Your questions, or your representative’s, go to the DHO, who decides whether to put them (28 C.F.R. § 541.8(f)(5)).

Confidential informants. The DHO may rely on confidential informant information he finds reliable. You will not learn the informant’s identity, and will learn the testimony only to the extent it does not jeopardize security. But the constraints are real, and they are where these cases turn:

• The finding “must be supported by more than one reliable confidential source.” If there is only one, the information must be corroborated by independently verified evidence linking you to the act.
• Reliability must be established before the information is used, by a record of past reliability or other specified factors, and the staff member providing it must give a written statement of how often the informant has provided information, over what period, and with what accuracy.
• Information received anonymously does not meet the reliability standard and may not be used as evidence at all — only in the investigation.
• Neither the DHO nor the UDC may consider information obtained in exchange for the promise of a favor.
• Confidential information should not be relied on when independent information is available. (PS 5270.09 at pp. 33–34)

Standard of proof. “Some facts,” and where evidence conflicts, the greater weight. On judicial review the bar is lower still: in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits,” and that applying that standard “does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.” A federal judge reviewing a DHO finding is asking whether there is any evidence that could support it — not whether the judge would have found the same way.

That is exactly why the administrative record matters more than the eventual lawsuit. The place to build the record is the DHO hearing and the appeal, not the courthouse.

Your appearance. You may appear in person or electronically at the DHO’s discretion, may be excluded during deliberations or where your presence would jeopardize security, and may waive appearance while still having a staff representative and witnesses appear for you. If you escape or are otherwise absent, the DHO holds the hearing in absentia at the institution where you were last confined; on return, the Warden has the charges reheard, ordinarily within 60 days of your arrival at your new designation (PS 5270.09 at p. 30).

The DHO report

The written report must document five things (28 C.F.R. § 541.8(h)):

1. Whether you were advised of your rights during the DHO process;
2. The evidence relied on;
3. The decision;
4. The sanction imposed; and
5. The reasons for the sanction imposed.

Policy adds that “the evidence, decision, and reasons for actions taken must be specific, unless this would jeopardize security” (PS 5270.09 at p. 35). Item 5 is the one most often reduced to boilerplate, and it is the one Wolff actually requires. You should receive the report ordinarily within 15 work days of the decision.

One more provision is worth knowing about, because it reaches beyond the disciplinary case. References in your central file to significant prohibited acts that were not supported by a disciplinary finding may not be used against you to forfeit good time or affect a parole recommendation, and must be maintained accurately — the policy’s own example is a suspected escape attempt that was never charged for lack of evidence, where “the lack of evidence [would] have to be noted in any reference.” Placing a reference to an unsupported 100- or 200-level offense in your file requires the written approval of the Warden where the incident occurred (PS 5270.09 at pp. 35–36). If you find an uncharged allegation sitting in your file, that is a specific, remediable problem — see our page on the inmate central file and records.

Appealing an adverse finding

Every disciplinary decision is appealable through the Administrative Remedy Program at 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B — the BP-8 through BP-11 route. Two things make disciplinary appeals different from ordinary grievances.

DHO appeals skip the institution. A DHO appeal is filed initially with the Regional Director on a BP-10, not with the Warden (28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(2)). A UDC appeal starts at the institution with the Warden. Filing at the wrong level costs you weeks.

Each incident report gets its own form. “For DHO and UDC appeals, each separate incident report number must be appealed on a separate form” (28 C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(2)). Combining two shots on one BP-10 gets both rejected.

Step	Form	Your deadline	Agency response time
UDC appeal / ordinary grievance to the Warden	BP-9	20 calendar days from the event	20 calendar days
DHO appeal (starts here) / appeal of a Warden response	BP-10	20 calendar days from the date the response was signed	30 calendar days
Appeal to the General Counsel — final administrative step	BP-11	30 calendar days from the date the Regional Director signed	40 calendar days

Deadlines from 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14–.15; response times from 28 C.F.R. § 542.18 and PS 1330.18 at p. 9.

If a submission is rejected for a correctable defect — an unsigned form, missing copies — you get a written rejection notice and a reasonable time to fix it: ordinarily five calendar days at the institution, at least 10 calendar days at the regional office, and 15 calendar days at the Central Office (PS 1330.18 at p. 8). Our full walkthrough is on the prison grievances page and the Administrative Remedy Program explainer.

What the reviewing official actually considers is spelled out (PS 5270.09 at p. 36):

• Whether the UDC or DHO substantially complied with the discipline regulations;
• Whether the decision was based on facts;
• Where evidence conflicted, whether the decision rested on the greater weight of the evidence; and
• Whether an appropriate sanction was imposed for the severity level and the circumstances.

And the limits on that review cut both ways. The reviewing official may not increase a valid sanction. The official is “limited to determining if the UDC or DHO could have rationally concluded that the evidence supports the decision, not necessarily whether the reviewing official would have made the same decision.” On remand, the UDC or DHO is bound by the original sanction unless the sanction violated policy, the remand was specifically about the sanction, or intervening behavior justifies a change that is documented in the record. And the investigator, UDC members, DHO, reporting officer, and staff representative may not investigate or help prepare the response to the appeal (PS 5270.09 at pp. 36–37).

If the administrative route is exhausted and the loss of good conduct time is still standing, the next step is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed in the district of confinement, where the court asks the Hill question: was there some evidence. Whether that is worth doing depends almost entirely on what the DHO report says on its face.

What a shot actually costs

The sanction listed on the DHO report is only the first-order damage. The second-order effects are usually larger, and they are the reason a 300-level shot for possession of a cell phone charger is worth fighting.

First Step Act time credits. Under 28 C.F.R. § 523.43, earned FSA time credits can be lost for violating the rules of a recommended program or activity, with the procedures set by part 541. Beyond forfeiture, there is an earning consequence: Bureau policy provides that a person in disciplinary segregation status will not be considered to be “successfully participating,” while a person in restrictive housing on administrative detention status “shall obtain FTCs if they otherwise remain in earning status” (PS 5410.01 at p. 8). Lost credits may be restored on a case-by-case basis after clear conduct across two consecutive risk and needs assessments (28 C.F.R. § 523.43(c)). See our pages on First Step Act time credits and on FSA time credit consulting.

Custody classification and transfer. Policy notes that not every disciplinary finding changes a security designation score — but the unit team “may recommend a greater security transfer, using their professional judgment” under the designation policy (PS 5270.09 at p. 12). A 100-level finding is one of the fastest routes from a low to a medium, or a medium to a high. See security levels and the security designation and custody classification explainer.

PATTERN score and release planning. Disciplinary history feeds risk assessment, which feeds halfway house and home confinement recommendations. See PATTERN risk score.

Program eligibility. Disciplinary status affects standing in the Residential Drug Abuse Program and in institution programming generally.

Contact with family. Loss of privileges under sanction F reaches visiting, telephone, email, commissary, movies and recreation. The DHO or UDC may also impose non-contact or immediate-family-only visiting on top of a loss of visiting (PS 5270.09 at p. 16).

What changed — and the one place the policy is behind the regulation

The regulation now carries an FSA time-credit sanction that the Program Statement does not. Sanction B.2 — forfeiture of earned First Step Act time credits, up to 41 days per act at the Greatest level and up to 27 days at High and Moderate — was written into 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 by the First Step Act time-credits final rule at 87 FR 2719 (Jan. 19, 2022). It does not appear in PS 5270.09, whose most recent change notice is dated November 18, 2020. If you are reading the Program Statement and not the regulation, you will not know that this sanction exists. The regulation binds; read the regulation.

Code 231 was added in 2020. Change Notice CN-1 (Nov. 18, 2020) added the High severity charge for pressuring another person to produce his own court documents.

The 2011 rewrite reshaped the whole scheme, and its changes still surprise people who did time before it. When PS 5270.09 replaced PS 5270.08 on July 8, 2011, it (PS 5270.09 at pp. 3–4):

• Raised the disciplinary segregation range from 7 to 60 days to 1 to 18 months;
• Extended the UDC review window from three work days to five work days;
• Added the monetary fine as a sanction, and removed reprimand and warning as formal sanctions;
• Made escape from a non-secure facility a Greatest rather than High severity act, and raised all alcohol-related offenses to Greatest;
• Created the current sexual assault codes 114 (with force) and 229 (without force), the stalking code 225, the possession-of-stolen-property code 226, the tattooing/self-mutilation code 228 at High severity, the gang-affiliation code 335, and the petition code 336; and
• Split special housing out into its own Program Statement, which is why conditions in the SHU are now governed by PS 5270.12 rather than the discipline policy.

Where these cases are actually won

We work disciplinary matters as a records problem first and an argument second. In roughly this order:

1. Get the whole packet. Incident report Parts I–III, the DHO report, the notice-of-rights forms, any staff memoranda, and the SENTRY chronological disciplinary record. If material is withheld as confidential, the fact of the withholding should still appear.
2. Run the clocks. Delivery within 24 hours of staff awareness. Investigation appointed and completed. UDC within five work days excluding the day of issuance, weekends and holidays — and if the Warden extended it, whether that approval is documented and in the packet (PS 5270.09 at p. 25). Notice at least 24 hours before the DHO. Report within 15 work days.
3. Test the charge against the code. Is a “most like” code being used where a specific one fits? Is a 218 charge supported by a valuation over $100.00? Are two codes charged for what is really one act?
4. Test the evidence. If the finding rests on a confidential informant, was reliability established on the record, and was there corroboration or a second source? Was anonymous information used as evidence? Was requested video preserved?
5. Test the witnesses. Were requested witnesses called, and if not, are the reasons documented in the report?
6. Test the reasons for the sanction. Did the DHO explain a departure above the disallowance guideline?
7. File at the right level, on time, one incident report per form.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: A disciplinary appeal is a record-building exercise before it is anything else. By the time a § 2241 petition reaches a district judge, the question is whether some evidence supports the finding — an extraordinarily forgiving standard. What a court can act on is a procedural failure that appears on the face of the Bureau’s own documents. That is why we care so much about what the DHO report says, and what it leaves out.

Our federal prison consulting practice handles disciplinary matters as part of a broader picture — designation and transfer problems, sentence computation, First Step Act credits, and release planning. Legal representation in any court proceeding is provided by Elizabeth Franklin-Best and the firm’s attorneys. You can contact the firm to discuss a pending incident report.

Frequently Asked Questions About Prison Disciplinary Proceedings

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