U.S. DOJ-Federal Bureau of Prisons-Office of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2017

• Locations: United States of America -> District of Columbia • Topics: Misconduct/Corruption, Threats by Staff

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Washington, DC

Office of Internal Affairs
Report for Fiscal Year 2017

Table of Contents
Executive Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................1
Reporting Incidents of Misconduct ..................................................................................................3
Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations ...........................................................................5
Reported Misconduct .......................................................................................................................8
Closed/Sustained Misconduct ........................................................................................................11
Physical Abuse of Inmates .............................................................................................................22
Introduction of Contraband ............................................................................................................24
Sexual Abuse of Inmates ...............................................................................................................27
Representative Case Summaries ....................................................................................................31
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................36
Monitoring Assignments ................................................................................................................44

Executive Summary of Findings
•

There was a 14.4 percent decrease in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2017
as compared with Fiscal Year 2016. The rate of reported misconduct among Bureau
of Prisons’ employees decreased 10.8 percent from Fiscal Year 2016.

•

Cases classified as Classification 1 offenses showed a decrease of 6.5 percent; cases
classified as Classification 2 offenses showed a decrease of 19.8 percent; and cases
classified as Classification 3 offenses showed a decrease of 14.7 percent.

•

The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2017 was On-Duty
Misconduct. Unprofessional Conduct and Failure to Follow Policy placed second and
third, respectively.

•

The categories of reported misconduct showing an increase from Fiscal Year 2016 are
as follows: Personnel Prohibitions, Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates, and
Unauthorized Release of Information. The largest decreases occurred in the
categories of Discrimination, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, and Fiscal Improprieties.

•

During Fiscal Year 2017, 9 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of October 13,
2017, 9 cases remained open pending investigation.

•

The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among Bureau of Prisons’
employees, with a sustained decision as of October 13, 2017, were Personnel
Prohibitions and Failure to Follow Policy.

•

As of October 13, 2017, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct among
both male and female Bureau or Prisons’ employees for whom a decision had been
made was Personnel Prohibitions. For those Bureau of Prisons’ employees with a
sustained decision as of October 13, 2017, the rate was highest among Food Services
staff.

•

As of October 13, 2017, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for
Residential Reentry Center employees was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates.
The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff in privatized facilities
was Failure to Follow Policy.

•

As of October 13, 2017, there was 1 sustained allegation of Physical Abuse reported
during Fiscal Year 2017. The inmate involved received minor/slight injury from the
incident. The subject involved was not criminally prosecuted.

•

As of October 13, 2017, 429 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were reported.
Twenty-three (23) allegations were sustained. There were 22 individuals involved in
the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband.
1

Executive Summary of Findings
•

During Fiscal Year 2017, 419 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the
Office of Internal Affairs or detected during the course of an investigation. As of
October 1, 2017, 9 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2017
were sustained.

Reporting Incidents of Misconduct
Staff Reporting
In accordance with the Bureau’s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of
any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report said
allegations/violations to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA),
or the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Additionally, the OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499), which is available to
report DOJ employees' misconduct, to include potential areas of fraud, waste, or abuse in
government. Bureau of Prisons’ staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to
remain anonymous, and/or perceive fear of retaliation/reprisal.
To report violations directly to the OIA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of Internal Affairs
320 First Street, NW, Room 600
Washington, DC 20534
Written complaints may also be sent via fax to (202) 514-8625.

CEO Reporting
Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either
through a report from staff or personal knowledge), the CEO at the institution, Regional Office
or Central Office Division, or his/her designee, is to report the violation to the OIA within 24
hours. Details and definitions are as follows:
•

Classification 1 cases are defined as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute
a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests).

•

Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations of rules,
regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution,
but constitute serious misconduct.

•

Classification 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less
impact on institutional operations.

Note: Classification 1 and 2 cases must be reported to the OIA immediately. As a particular
investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving
it into another classification.

Reporting Incidents of Misconduct
Again, written notification to the OIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends
and holidays) from the time management official(s) learn of the matter. When there is suspected
criminal conduct, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the OIA and the local OIG or
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office.
Submitting Initial Information
A Referral of Incident form (BP-A715.012) is used to organize the information to be provided
(for contract employees use form BP-A774.012). Be sure to include the following information:
•
•
•

The identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(s), and victim(s);
The details of the allegation(s); and
All corroborating evidence.

The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to
receiving clearance from the OIG and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against
procedural errors, as well as to safeguard the rights of the subject(s).
Supporting Documentation
A Referral of Incident form (BP-A715.012) and all supporting documentation (e.g. victim or
witness statements, medical reports, photos, BP-583/586, and related memoranda), must be sent
to the OIA immediately.
If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member, and has not received a medical
examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and
forward a copy of the results to the OIA as soon as possible. PREA related protocols must be
followed, accordingly.
Contact the OIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct.
It is important to note that case classifications are many times based upon limited information.
All signed Referral of Incident forms (BP-S715.012 or BP-S774.012), in tandem with
appropriate predicating information, should be scanned as a single file (via .pdf, Adobe Acrobat)
and sent directly to the OIA via e-mail: OIA BOPNet GroupWise mailbox,
“BOP-DIR/InternalAffairs-Referrals~.” The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on
the top of the file with all supporting documentation underneath.

Review of Local Staff
Misconduct Investigations
The CEO must receive OIA approval prior to initiating a local investigation. Investigator must
forward the complete investigative packet for all misconduct investigations directly to the OIA
for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local
staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classification 1, 2, and
3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained.

Where to Send Local Investigative Packets
Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the OIA GroupWise mailbox: "BOPDIR/Internal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OIA's main resource
mailbox, "BOP-DIR/Internal Affairs~"). The subject of your e-mail message should include the
OIA case number and the facility mnemonic code (e.g., 2015-00001-BUX).
To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the OIA in a timely manner, packets
should not be sent to either any individual OIA staff member or directly to any OIA field office.

Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send
Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator)
and all supporting documentation (e.g. affidavits, memorandums, video files, etc.). Note: The
Summary of Investigation for Classification 3 Cases form (BP-A716.012) is no longer applicable
and should not be used.
Documents must be scanned as .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat), and saved as follows:
Investigative Report (OIA Case Number)
Affidavits and MOIs (OIA Case Number)
Supporting Documentation (OIA Case Number)
Do not send documents in other formats (e.g., .tif files, .docx files).
Affidavit files should include the “Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide
Information” (BP-A194.012), if applicable, as well as the signed Oath for each individual. The
investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not specifically related
to the investigation (e.g., staff rosters, inmate SENTRY information, etc.).

Review of Local Staff
Misconduct Investigations
Time Guidelines
Local investigators must complete investigative packets and forward to the OIA within 120
calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OIA.
Once received, the OIA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within 10
business days. The local investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is
approved, or if additional information is required. This information will be sent via e-mail to the
local investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is required, the local
investigator should forward the additional information to the OIA within 30 calendar days, who
will again notify the local investigator and CEO if the packet has been approved. Once
approved, the local investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for
appropriate action with all requisite “Review of Local Investigative Packet” forms attached.
No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subject(s) should occur prior to the
OIA's approval of the investigative packet.

Reports from the OIA
The OIA sends the CEO a monthly report of all local staff misconduct investigations, which have
extended past established deadlines. SIAs/SISs should continue to work with the monitoring
Agent assigned to their facility on an ongoing and recurring basis. SIA/SIS should provide
updates on any outstanding matters. The Agent will provide guidance, as needed.

Complaints
Matters designated by the OIA as complaints are returned to the CEO via memorandum. Such
complaints will be categorized as follows: Complaint for Information, Complaint for
Disposition, and Complaint for Investigation.
A Complaint for Information will be sent via memorandum in the event the OIA has reviewed
a referred matter, and determined the allegation(s) do not rise to a level of staff misconduct.
A Complaint for Disposition will be sent via memorandum for CEO review. A summary of the
CEO’s findings is not required by the OIA. Should the CEO determine, however, that any
misconduct might have occurred, he/she will make an appropriate referral back to the OIA in
accordance with policy. These complaints are generally received from external sources (e.g.
deferred by OIG) for OIA review.
Lastly, a Complaint for Investigation will be sent via memorandum for additional fact-finding
and inquiry. The CEO response should be inclusive of the following: statements from relevant
6

Review of Local Staff
Misconduct Investigations
parties involved; any supporting documentation affiliated with complaint findings; and CEO
recommendations in a signed memorandum from the CEO. In the event the CEO believes
misconduct may have occurred in the course of reviewing this matter, the CEO will submit a
referral referencing the OIA complaint number provided. Documentation for investigative
complaints should be sent via e-mail to the OIA GroupWise mailbox: "BOP-DIR/Internal
Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~".

Reported Misconduct
All allegations of misconduct received by the OIA, are reviewed and classified. Allegations
classified as Category 1 or 2 matters are immediately referred to the OIG for review and
disposition. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible
criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the OIA for investigation. The OIA coordinates
with the OIG and/or the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there
are allegations involving the abuse of an
individual's Constitutional rights under Color
of Law.
NOTES
For those matters deferred for investigation, the
OIA determines, after consulting with relevant
BOP management officials, whether an on-site
investigation is warranted or if the matter can
be investigated at the local institution level.
Allegations categorized as Classification 3
offenses are referred to the OIG via computer
extract on a monthly basis.

Due to the dynamic nature of the
OIA database, figures in this report
are subject to change. During the
course of an investigation, evidence
may indicate circumstances other
than those initially reported,
causing data to be added, deleted,
and/or changed. There is no nexus
between reported and sustained
allegations.

During Fiscal Year 2017, the OIA opened
4,392 cases involving 5,371 BOP employees,
33 contract employees working in BOP
facilities, 62 Public Health Service (PHS)
employees working in BOP facilities, 5
volunteers working in BOP facilities, 135
contract/residential reentry center employees, 3
drug treatment contractors, 0 employee
working at an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) facility, and 133 employees working in
privatized facilities.

The number of subjects exceeds the
number of cases throughout this
report as some cases have multiple
subjects. Also, some subjects may
be charged with multiple types of
misconduct in a single case,
causing the number of allegations
to be higher. Finally, individual
employees may be subjects in more
than one case.
Allegations referred to as "Inmate
Related" included some type of
inmate involvement, while
allegations referred to as "Non Inmate Related" occurred in the
workplace but did not include
inmate involvement. For a
complete list of the types of
misconduct included in each
category, please reference the
Appendices section of this report.

These 4,392 cases represent a modest 14.4
percent decrease from the 5,128 cases opened
during Fiscal Year 2016. The rate of reported
misconduct among BOP employees decreased
10.8 percent from Fiscal Year 2016.
The 4,392 cases opened during Fiscal Year
2017 were classified as follows:

** Unless otherwise noted, the
figures for this report (Fiscal Year
2017) were generated on October
13, 2017.

Classification 1 .................................. 1,034
Classification 2 .................................. 1,185
Classification 3 .................................. 2,170

Reported Misconduct
Cases classified as Classification 1 offenses showed an increase of 5.3 percent, while cases
classified as Classification 2 offenses showed an increase of 10.8 percent. Cases classified as
Classification 3 offenses showed a decrease of 9.9 percent.
Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - Fiscal Year 2017
Number of Reported Allegations
Types of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

Non Inmate
Related

Off-Duty

% Change
from 2016

TOTAL

Unprofessional Conduct

628

625

1253

-5.9

On-Duty Misconduct

590

1031

1621

-1.3

862

2.5

Personnel Prohibitions

821

Failure to Follow Policy

615

544

1,159

-6.7

Inattention to Duty

356

447

803

-6.1

Abuse of Inmates

799

-11.6

Fiscal Improprieties

113

505

-20.2

427

-15.3

422

-7.3

609

7.2

429

-1.4

420

-23.5

106

-15.2

392

Off-Duty Misconduct

427

Breach of Security

185

Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates

609

Introduction of Contraband

288

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

420

237

141

Investigative Violations
Unauthorized Release of Information

107

154

13.2

Bribery

114

117

-7.9

-52.4

Discrimination

Table 1 provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year
2017. The categories of reported misconduct showing an increase from Fiscal Year 2016 are as
follows: Personnel Prohibitions (2.5 percent), Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates (7.2
percent), and Unauthorized Release of Information (13.2 percent). The largest decreases
occurred in the categories of Discrimination (-52.4 percent), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (-23.5
percent), and Fiscal Improprieties (-20.2 percent).

Reported Misconduct
USA Patriot Act
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into
law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. One of the provisions of the Patriot Act
addressed reporting any potential abuse(s) of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ
employees involving violence, discrimination, or threats. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated
that the OIG widely advertise receiving allegations and any associated investigations of violence,
discrimination, or threats on the part of a DOJ employee; particularly when such cases are
directed toward individuals or groups associated with the general public’s perception of
“extremist ideology” pertaining to an individual’s religious beliefs, place of birth, and/or
appearance. Patriot Act allegations typically reported to the OIA involve alleged mistreatment or
unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/around certain inmates, their visitors or members of
the public.
Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classified as Classification
2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the OIA. All Patriot Act
violation allegations are referred to a Special Operations Unit at OIG Headquarters, devoted to
reviewing and investigating such alleged misconduct.
Of the 4,392 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2017, 9 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As
of October 13, 2017, 9 cases remained open pending investigation.
Of the 5,128 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2016, 14 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As
of November 1, 2017, 5 cases remained open pending investigation, and 9 cases were closed. No
allegations were sustained.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been
made on 1,258 (28.6 percent) of the 4,392
cases opened during Fiscal Year 2017. The
remaining 3,134cases (71.4 percent) were still
open and being investigated. Of the 1,258
cases closed, the majority, 1,094 (87.0
percent), were investigated at the institution
level (“local investigation”) with authorization
and monitoring provided by the OIA. Of the
1,258 cases closed, 129 were OIA on-site
investigations (10.3 percent), and 32 (2.5
percent) were investigated by the OIG.

NOTES

All figures in this section relate to
cases, which were opened during
Fiscal Year 2017 and were closed as
of October 13, 2017. Figures are
subject to change as additional cases
are closed, and only relate to cases
that were sustained and not
sustained.
Please refer to the appendices section
of this report for the types of
misconduct sustained against BOP
employees in cases opened during
Fiscal Year 2017.

Of the 1,258 cases closed, 342 (27.2 percent)
were sustained. Misconduct was sustained
against 305 BOP employees, 7 contract
employees working in BOP facilities, 6 PHS
employees working in BOP facilities, 16
contract/residential reentry center employees, 1 Drug Treatment Contractors, 43 employees
working in privatized facilities, and 1 volunteer.

Bureau of Prisons’ Employees (BOP)
Out of 37,273 active-duty BOP employees, there were 5,371 BOP employees identified as
subjects of alleged misconduct in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2017. As of October 13,
2017, a decision had been made for 25.1 percent of those employees. Of the 25.1 percent (or
1,346 employees), 22.7 percent (305) had a sustained decision (0.82 percent of total BOP
employees). Of the 5,371 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year
2017, as of November 1, 2017, 315 were unidentified.
Table 2 (on the following page) reflects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP
employees with a decision as of October 13, 2017. The most frequently sustained categories of
misconduct were Personnel Prohibitions and Failure to Follow Policy.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2017
With 28.6 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Non Inmate
Related

Inmate Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL

Unprofessional Conduct

Inattention to Duty

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Failure to Follow Policy
Off-Duty Misconduct
Breach of Security
Introduction of Contraband
Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates

Investigative Violations

28
5

Abuse of Inmates

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Unauthorized Release of Information

Discrimination

Bribery

Disciplinary Process
Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action
taken is left to the deciding official, generally the CEO. Since each case is unique, with varying
degrees of seriousness attached to the allegation of misconduct, disciplinary actions may vary
from case-to-case. Also, a subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in any
particular incident(s). In any event, “The Douglas Factors” must be considered when deciding
the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in
cases involving civil servant misconduct. This was created under the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas v. Veterans Administration (1981) case. From this case,
the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal
agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct.
The specific Douglas Factors are as follows:
•

The nature and seriousness of the offense;

•

The employee's job level and type of employment;

•

The employee's disciplinary record;

•

The employee's past work record, including length of service and duty performance;

•

The effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the
supervisor's confidence in such ability;

•

The consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar
misconduct;

•

The consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement
3420.11, Standards of Employee Conduct;

•

The notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BOP's reputation;

•

The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about
the conduct in question;

•

The employee's potential for rehabilitation;

•

Any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense (e.g., job stress/tension,
personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation
on the part of others involved;

•

The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions.

The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors, which are relevant to any
individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. Also, some the Douglas
Factors may suggest one type of penalty, while others suggest another penalty. Again, it is
incumbent upon the CEO to choose the appropriate penalty within these guidelines.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
As of October 13, 2017, the following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees
with a sustained decision (FY17):
Written Reprimand.................................................................101
Resignation ............................................................................55
Suspension .............................................................................72
No Action ...............................................................................35
Retirement ..............................................................................6
Termination ............................................................................19
Oral Reprimand ......................................................................0
Combined With Action in another OIA Matter .....................14
Demotion................................................................................2
Other ......................................................................................1

The specific type of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no
disciplinary action was taken was Personnel Prohibitions (9.6 percent of all sustained misconduct
for staff in this group).

Gender
There were 3,850 male BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2017.
As of November 1, 2017, a decision had been made for 25.5 percent of those 3,850 male
employees. Of the 25.5 percent (or 982 male employees), 22.6 percent (222) had a sustained
decision (0.82 percent of total male BOP staff).
There were 1,209 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2017.
As of November 1, 2017, a decision had been made for 24.8 percent of those 1,209 female
employees. Of the 24.8 percent (or 300 female employees), 27.3 percent (82) had a sustained
decision (0.81 percent of total female BOP staff).
Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) reflect the categories of sustained allegations for male
and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of October 13, 2017. The most
frequently sustained category of misconduct among male BOP employees was Personnel
Prohibitions. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female BOP
employees was Personnel Prohibitions.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - Fiscal Year 2017
With 28.6 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Non Inmate
Related

Inmate Related

Personnel Prohibitions
Unprofessional Conduct

Off-Duty

TOTAL

Fiscal Improprieties

On-Duty Misconduct

Inattention to Duty
Off-Duty Misconduct
Failure to Follow Policy

Introduction of Contraband

Breach of Security

Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates
Abuse of Inmates

Investigative Violations

Unauthorized Release of Information

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Discrimination

Bribery

Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among
male BOP staff than among female BOP staff.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - Fiscal Year 2017
With 28.6 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Non Inmate
Related

Inmate Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL

Unprofessional Conduct

Inattention to Duty

Failure to Follow Policy

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates
Breach of Security

15
5

Investigative Violations

15
4

Off-Duty Misconduct

2
6

Introduction of Contraband

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Abuse of Inmates

Discrimination

Bribery

Unauthorized Release of Information

Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among
female BOP staff than among male BOP staff.

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Job Discipline
As of October 13, 2017, 305 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal
Year 2017 had a sustained decision. Of the 305 BOP employees with a sustained decision as of
October 13, 2017, 267 were bargaining unit employees and 37 were non-bargaining unit
employees.
Table 5 reflects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines.
Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2017
With 28.6 Percent Closed
Total
Number of Employees With
Rate Per 100 Total
Discipline
Employees
Sustained Misconduct
Employees
Human Resources

464

0.43

Facilities

2454

0.57

Psychology Services

1185

0.68

Recreation

799

1.00

CEOs Office and Staff

905

0.55

1717

1.57

238

1.26

Correctional Services

17242

169

0.98

Health Services/Safety

2705

0.63

Unit Management

3172

0.66

Religious Services

329

0.30

Records/Inmate Systems

1047

0.57

Education & Vocational Training

1076

0.46

Business Office

1634

0.80

Central Office/Staff Training Centers

1895

0.21

UNICOR

425

0.24

Inmate Services

366

0.00

1969

0.00

Food Service
Computer Services

Other*

* “Other” staff includes those assigned to special programs (i.e. ICC).

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Residential Reentry Center Employees
There were 135 contract/residential reentry center employees identified as misconduct subjects
in Fiscal Year 2017. As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been made for 59.1 percent of those
135 employees. Of the 59.1 percent (or 80 employees), 20.0 percent (16) had a sustained
decision.
Sustained Misconduct – Residential Reentry Center Employees
Inmate
Related

Allegation
Abuse of Inmates

Non Inmate
Related

Off-Duty

Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates

Unprofessional Conduct

Personnel Prohibitions

1
3

Failure to Follow Policy

Other On-Duty Misconduct

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Unauthorized Release of Information

Investigative Violations

0
1

Inattention to Duty

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Staff in Privatized Facilities
There were 133 employees working in privatized facilities identified as misconduct subjects
during Fiscal Year 2017. As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been made for 69.2 percent of
those 133 employees. Of the 69.2 percent (or 92 employees), 46.7 percent (43) had a sustained
decision.
Table 6 provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees
working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff
working in privatized facilities was Failure to Follow Policy.
Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - Fiscal Year 2017
With 69.2 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Non Inmate
Related

Inmate Related

Failure to Follow Policy
Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates

Off-Duty

TOTAL

On-Duty Misconduct

Breach of Security

Unprofessional Conduct

Investigative Violations
Abuse of Inmates

Introduction of Contraband

Inattention to Duty

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Fiscal Improprieties

Bribery

Personnel Prohibitions

Discrimination

Unauthorized Release of Information

Off-Duty Misconduct

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Drug Treatment Contractors
There were 3 drug treatment contractors identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year
2017. As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been made for 66.7 percent of the 3 drug treatment
contractors. Of the 66.7 percent (or 1 drug treatment contractor), 100 percent (1) had a sustained
decision. The 1 allegation of Failure to Follow Policy was sustained against the drug treatment
contractor.

Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities
There were 33 contract employees and 5 volunteers working in BOP facilities identified as
misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2017.
As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been made for 45.5 percent of the 33 contract employees.
Of the 45.5 percent (or 15 contract employees), 46.7 percent (7) had a sustained decision.
As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been made for 40.0 percent of the 5 volunteers. Of the
40.0 percent (or 2 volunteers), 50.0 percent (1) had a sustained decision.

Sustained Misconduct - Contract Employees/Volunteers
Inmate
Related

Allegation
Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Non Inmate
Related

Off-Duty

Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates

Investigation Violations

Personnel Prohibitions

Fiscal Improprieties

Off-Duty Misconduct

Unprofessional Conduct

Closed/Sustained Misconduct
Public Health Services (PHS) Employees Working in BOP Facilities
Of the approximately 801 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 62 were identified as
misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2017 (7.7 percent). As of October 13, 2017, a decision
had been made for 19.4 percent of those 62 PHS employees. Of the 19.4 percent (or 12 PHS
employees), 50.0 percent (6) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of 3.0 percent of total
PHS employees working in BOP facilities.

Sustained Misconduct – PHS Employees
Inmate
Related

Allegation

Non Inmate
Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Fiscal Improprieties

Off-Duty Misconduct

Off-Duty

Inattention to Duty

Failure to Follow Policy

Other On-Duty Misconduct

Physical Abuse of Inmates
Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights
§241 Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any
State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the
same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent
to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or
an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse,
or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
§242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
If bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the
acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt
to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be
sentenced to death.

Statistics
During Fiscal Year 2017, 409 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates, were either reported to
the OIA, or detected during the course of an investigation. As of October 13, 2017, a decision
had been made for 25.7 percent (or 105) of those allegations. Allegations of Physical Abuse are
tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmate(s) - life threatening injury, serious injury,
minor/slight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and superficial injury (injuries associated with
the normal use of restraints). One (1) allegation of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year
22

Physical Abuse of Inmates
2017 was sustained as of October 13, 2017. The inmate involved sustained minor/slight injury.
The subject involved was a BOP Employee. The subject with a sustained allegation of Physical
Abuse of Inmates was not criminally prosecuted.

Introduction of Contraband
Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons
§1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison
(a) Offense -Whoever(1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate
of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or
(2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or
obtain, a prohibited object;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Punishment.-The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under this title or (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both, if the object is specified in
subsection (d)(1)(C) of this section;
(2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years or both, if the object is specified in
subsection (d)(1)(A) of this section;
(3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years or both, if the object is specified in subsection
(d)(1)(B) of this section;
(4) imprisonment for no more than one year or both, if the object is specified in
subsection (d)(1)(D) or (c)(1)(E) of this section; and
(5) imprisonment for not more than six months or both, if the object is specified in
subsection (d)(1)(F) of this section.
(c) Any punishment imposed under subsection (b) for a violation of this section by an inmate of
a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate
commits such violation.
(d) Definitions -As used in this section(1) The term “prohibited object” means:
(A) A firearm, destructive device or a controlled substance in Section I or II, other
than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of
this subsection;

Introduction of Contraband
(B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule III, other than a controlled
substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a
weapon (other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed
or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison;
(C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers,
lysergic acid diethylamide, or phencyclidine;
(D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage;
(E) any United States or foreign currency; and
(F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or
the life, health, or safety of an individual;
(2) the terms “ammunition,” “firearm,” and “destructive device” have, respectively, the
meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title;
(3) the terms “controlled substance” and “narcotic drug” have, respectively, the meanings
given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC, §802); and
(4) the term “prison” means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any
prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our
pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General.

Statistics
During Fiscal Year 2017, 429 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or
detected during the course of an investigation. As of October 13, 2017, a decision had been
made for 21.0 percent (or 90) of those allegations. As of October 13, 2017, 23 (or 24.4 percent)
allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2017 were sustained:
Inmate
Related

Type of Contraband

Non Inmate
Related

Soft Item

Weapons*

Unauthorized Electronic Device

Cigarettes/Tobacco

Other Unspecified Drugs
1
*Includes 3 Handguns and 2 Weapon classified as “Other”

Introduction of Contraband
There were 22 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband.
Twenty (20) of these individuals were BOP employees (11 male and 9 female). Eleven (11) of
the BOP employees worked in Correctional Services, 1 worked in Health Services/Safety, 1
worked in Mechanical Services, 1 in Food Services, 1 in Religious Services, 1 in Inmate
Services, 1 in Business Office, 1 in Unit Management, 1 in Human Resources, and 1 in CEO
Office and Staff. Two (2) of the individuals with a sustained allegation were staff working in
privatized facilities.

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse
§2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse
(a) By force or threat - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United
States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in
custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the head of any Federal
department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act (1) by using force against that other person, or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to
death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years, life or both.
(b) By other means - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in
custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal
department or agency, knowingly (1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that
other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or
permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control
conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years, life or both.
§2242 Sexual Abuse
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal
prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction
of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency,
knowingly (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other
person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any
person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or
27

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating
unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act;
or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
§2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward
(b) Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States
or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in
custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal
department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is (1) in official detention; and
(2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years or both.
§2244 Abusive Sexual Contact
(a) Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in
any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant
to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly
engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate (1) subsection (a) or (b) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual
act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years or both;
(2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than three years or both;
(3) subsection (a) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years or both;
(4) subsection (b) of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years or both.

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
(5) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act,
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are
held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any
Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without
that other person’s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years,
or both.
§ 2246 Definitions
(1) The term “prison” means a correctional, detention, or penal facility;
(2) The term “sexual act” means (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the
purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration,
however slight;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and
the anus; or
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or
finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person
who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(3) The term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(4) The term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death,
unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss
or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
(5) The term “official detention” means (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer
or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for
an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of
29

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil
commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal
proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or
exclusion; or
(B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Officer
or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance,
work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than
custody during specified hours or days) after release on bail, probation, parole or after
release following a juvenile delinquency.
Note: Also reference the most recent and relevant program statements pertaining to the Prison
Rape Elimination Act (PREA): PREA G5324A.03; as well as Sexually Abusive Behavior
Prevention and Intervention Program, 5324.12.

Statistics
During Fiscal Year 2017, 419 allegations of Sexual Abuse, were either reported to the OIA or
detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 419 allegations, 369 involved BOP
employees, 4 involved a PHS employees working in a BOP facility, 31 involved contract staff
working in residential reentry facilities, 12 involved staff working in privatized facilities and 3
involved contract staff working in a BOP facility.
The allegations that appeared with the most frequency were Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual
Nature between male staff and male inmates, with 123 allegations reported, and Abusive Sexual
Contact between male staff and male inmates, with 90 allegations reported.
As of October 1, 2017, 9 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2017 were
sustained. Two hundred twenty-eight (228) allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2017 were
pending.

Representative Case Summaries
Though the outcome, discipline and disposition of any investigated case may vary, the following
are brief summaries of some of the cases, which were completed as of Fiscal Year 2017:
•

Personnel Prohibitions: A male Case Manager was asked to provide a urine sample for
a random urinalysis. The urinalysis results revealed the subject tested positive for
Marijuana. The allegation of Use/Abuse of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol were sustained. The
subject was terminated. (2017-03680)

•

Unprofessional Conduct (Non-Inmate Related): A male Facilities staff member
allegedly took another male Facilities staff member’s PIV card and refused to give it
back. The subject then allegedly put his crotch in the other staff member’s face and told
the individual to reach in and get his card. The staff member allegedly refused but asked
the subject to give his card back. The subject then allegedly sat down, lifted his shirt and
started to rub his nipples. The subject then asked the complainant to come over and rub
his (subject’s) nipples. Later, the complainant claims he overheard that he was being
referred to as a "rat" in Facilities. The subject further allegedly placed a piece of
plywood between his and the complainant’s desk in an attempt to segregate the
complainant from the rest of the Facilities staff. The investigation determined the
allegations of Unprofessional Conduct, Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature and
Workplace Violence were sustained. The subject was terminated. (2017-01475)

•

Unprofessional Conduct (Inmate Related): A male Facilities staff member took a
piece of paper from an inmate and crumpled the sheet of paper. The subject then reached
out to the inmate, pulled open his [inmate’s] khaki shirt; then the subject proceeded to
stuff the paper down the front of the inmate’s shirt. An investigation determined that the
allegation of Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The subject received a 1 day
suspension. (2017-03863)

•

Inattention to Duty: A male Correctional Officer was observed using a laptop computer
while he was on duty escorting an inmate at the local hospital. An investigation
determined the allegations of Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates and Inattention to
Duty were sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2017-03186)

•

Falsification of Documents and Failure to Follow Policy: A female Executive
Assistant/Camp Administrator allegedly fraudulently signed inmate Program Review
forms, despite not being present during the review. The complainant claims she had
requested the subject to attend/participate in inmate Program Reviews on numerous
occasions. The complainant alleged she even changed the day and time as per the
subject’s direction, yet the subject did not attended any reviews. The allegations of
Falsification of Documents and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained against the
subject. Additionally, the investigation revealed sufficient evidence the complainant
conducted inmate Program Review meetings alone. Therefore, the allegation of Failure

Representative Case Summaries
to Follow Policy was sustained against the complainant. The subject received a 1 day
suspension. The complainant received a Written Reprimand. (2016-05274)
•

Fiscal Improprieties: A female Sex Offender Treatment Specialist allegedly started a
private practice Psychology Services company without CEO authorization. The
complainant alleged the subject stated she did not intend to seek approval because the
Warden would deny the request. The subject’s supervisor alleged the subject had
consistently requested leave via the FMLA on Mondays for personal mental health and
medical appointments. An investigation revealed the subject utilized the time she was on
leave to conduct business for her private company. It was determined the subject’s
outside employment activities did not comply with the stated purposes for which
employees are entitled to FMLA. The allegations of Time and Attendance Irregularities
and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. The subject resigned. (2017-02784)

•

Failure to Follow Policy: A male Correctional Officer was observed entering the
institution without drawing a vest from the Control Center. The subject was instructed to
report to the Control Center to draw a vest. The complainant instructed the subject, that
he was not permitted to the enter the institution with a personally owned vest and that the
subject was to wear the BOP issued, stabbed resistant vest. An investigation determined
the allegations of Failure to Follow Supervisor Instructions and Failure to Follow Policy
were sustained. The subject received a 2 day suspension. (2017-01453)

•

Off-Duty Misconduct (DUI/DWI and Misuse of Official Position/Badge): A male
Facilities staff member was arrested for Operating a Motor Vehicle, Under the Influence.
The arrest report indicated the subject provided his BOP ID to the deputy, despite being
asked for his driver's license several times, and stated, "That is the only identification you
will need.” The arrest report further noted the subject asked the deputy, "Aren't we on
the same team? Just take me home." The subject’s Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) was
0.32% when he was processed into the jail. Based upon the police report, there was
sufficient evidence that the subject unsuccessfully attempted to use his BOP position and
identification to avoid arrest. Accordingly, the allegations of DWI/DUI and Misuse of
Official Position/Badge were sustained. The subject received a 3 day suspension.
(2016-3972)

•

Off-Duty Misconduct (Failure to Pay Just Debts, Refusing to Cooperate, and Failure
to Obtain Outside Employment Approval): A male Materials Handler Supervisor
failed to provide documentation to resolve interrogatories after several requests during a
recent background re-investigation. The subject allegedly had several outstanding
financial accounts for a noted total over $55,000. It was also noted the subject was
employed as a part-time Security Officer at a local hospital. The subject had not received
prior authorization for outside employment. The investigation determined the allegations
of Failure to Pay Just Debts, Refusing to Cooperate, and Failure to Obtain Outside
Employment Approval were sustained. The subject received a 2 day suspension.
(2016-01982)
32

Representative Case Summaries
•

Breach of Computer Security: A male Correctional Officer plugged in his personal cell
phone to the USP Control Center computer three separate times, as reported by the
Symantec Endpoint Protection software. The Control Center is beyond the staff’s
screening site in the Front Lobby, therefore the staff member should not have been in
possession of his cell phone. The investigation concluded the allegations of
Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction and Failure to Follow Policy and Breach of
Computer Security were sustained. The subject received a Written Reprimand.
(2017-00213)

•

Breach of Security, Inattention to Duty, and Failure to Follow Policy: A female
Correctional Officer abandoned the Control Center post. The complainant alleges he
witnessed the subject walk past the Lieutenant’s Office, but he was unaware at the time
the post was abandoned. The subject allegedly exited the Control Center, leaving the
Control Center door open and the flag grill unsecured, so she could smoke in one of the
recreation cages. The allegations of Breach of Security, Inattention to Duty and Failure
to Follow Policy were sustained. The subject resigned. (2017-04186)

•

Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates/Inmate’s Family and Unprofessional
Conduct of a Sexual Nature: A male Correctional Officer inappropriately contacted an
inmate’s girlfriend via text, attempting to solicit a romantic relationship. The subject was
utilizing the visiting program to acquire the girlfriend’s contact information. An SIS
Technician received a telephone call from the girlfriend, who claimed she had received
text messages from the subject, which were sexual in nature. The allegations of Improper
Contact with an Inmate/Inmate’s Family and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature
were sustained. The subject resigned. (2016-08078)

•

Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates: A female Correctional Officer sent
sexually explicit photographs of herself to a male inmate who had recently transferred to
a halfway house. The subject visited the inmate and his family on multiple occasions,
engaged in a sexual relationship with the inmate and accepted gifts from the inmate. The
inmate was eventually sent back to a Federal prison on a violation. The subject continued
to correspond with the inmate via the BOP inmate telephone and e-mail system. The
OIG investigation also revealed the subject provided the inmate with $20,000. The
allegations of Offering/Giving Anything of Value, Appearance of an Inappropriate
Relationship, Improper Contact with an Inmate/Inmate’s Family and Soliciting/Accepting
Anything of Value were sustained. The subject was terminated. (2016-03842)

•

Investigative Violations – Advising Someone to Violate Policy: A male Deputy
Captain instructed a female Correctional Officer to open the front door while weapons
were being returned to an open gun locker. The complainant reported she told the subject
she could not open the door because the gun locker was open. The subject replied, "It's
not in policy, open the [expletive] door." The allegations of Breach of Security, Advising
33

Representative Case Summaries
Someone to Violate Policy and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. The subject
received a Written Reprimand. (2015-03340)
•

Excessive Use of Force – OC Related: A male inmate threw an unknown liquid
substance (believed to be urine) at a male Correctional Officer. The complainant states
the subject responded by dispersing "one two second burst of O.C. from his MK-4
canister." The investigation revealed the subject used excessive force when he sprayed
the inmate with OC. At the time of the incident, the inmate was secured in his cell and
the subject admitted there was opportunity for him to depart the range once the liquid was
thrown on him. Accordingly, the allegations of Excessive Use of Force - OC Spray and
Failure to Follow Policy-OC Spray were sustained. The subject received a 1 day
suspension. (2016-05048)

•

Excessive Use of Force: A male Lieutenant allegedly grabbed a female inmate by the
hair on the back of her head and pulled her toward the ground in an attempt to place her
in hand restraints. The investigation revealed that during the immediate use of force, the
subject pulled the inmate’s hair twice after the inmate’s hands were in restraints behind
her back. The allegation of Excessive Use of Force was sustained. The subject received
a 5 day suspension. (2015-04652)

•

Unauthorized Release of Information: A male Case Manager provided an inmate with
the access code to make unmonitored telephone calls. During a legal call, the subject
allegedly provided the inmate with a PIN number and left the inmate alone, allowing the
inmate to be unsupervised and to make as many unmonitored phone calls as the inmate
desired. The allegation of Unauthorized Release of Information and Failure to Follow
Policy were sustained. The subject received a 2 day suspension. (2017-00315)

•

Bribery: A male Unit Manager bribed an inmate to provide cash in exchange for
contraband. The subject received $700 and a cell phone from an employee of the
inmate’s attorney. The subject was also poised to accept a $15,000 loan from the inmate.
The subject never introduced contraband to the facility. The allegation of Bribery was
sustained. The subject resigned. (2017-00598)

•

Introduction of Contraband (Cigarettes): A male Correctional Officer allegedly
provided an inmate with cans of tobacco and Suboxone in exchange for money. The
investigation did not substantiate that the subject had introduced Suboxone or received
money; however, the subject admitted he provided the inmate with cigarettes on multiple
occasions. The allegation of Cigarettes/Tobacco Introduction was sustained. The subject
resigned. (2017-00960)

•

Bribery and Introduction of Contraband (Soft Item/Other Drugs): A male
Correctional Officer at a private facility offered to introduce illegal drugs in exchange for
$2,000. The subject solicited assistance from an OIG confidential informant (CI) to
34

Representative Case Summaries
obtain a large quantity of marijuana. The CI provided the subject with the contact
information of an OIG undercover agent. The subject agreed to smuggle cocaine into the
correctional facility in exchange for money. The subject also admitted he had smuggled
cigarettes and cologne into the institution for an inmate. When the subject was arrested,
he was found in possession of money, cocaine, and a Glock 22 .40 caliber handgun. The
subject was convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance.
The subject was sentenced to 46 months incarceration, 1 year of supervised release and
40 hours of community service. (2017-00359)
•

Introduction of Contraband (Weapons): A female Accounting Technician placed her
items through the x-ray scanner, when the Front Lobby Officer notified her that there
appeared to be a handgun in her bag, the subject took the bag from the machine and
returned it to her vehicle. The subject then proceeded to park her vehicle off institution
property. The allegation of Weapons Introduction was sustained. The subject received a
21 day suspension. (2017-03470)

•

Introduction of Contraband - Unauthorized Electronic Device: A male Probationary
Correctional Officer placed his items through the x-ray scanner, when the Front Lobby
Officer saw what appeared to be a laptop in the personal bag belonging to the subject.
The subject allegedly stated, "Oh my bad, I was working mobile patrol and I had it there
and I am working overtime now so I forgot." The subject departed the Front Lobby and
placed the laptop in his vehicle. The allegation of Unauthorized Electronic Device
Introduction was sustained. The subject resigned. (2017-00971)

•

Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature (Staff Related): A male Unit Manager
walked behind a female Case Manager, placed his hand on her waist and began dancing.
A witness stated she observed the subject rotating his hips behind the complainant. The
allegation of Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature was sustained. The subject
received a 1 day suspension. (2016-07599)

•

Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature (Staff Related): A male Correctional
Officer made several inappropriate comments toward a female Correctional Officer while
at work, to include the Training Center during a “going-away” function. The
complainant claims the subject "propositioned" the complainant for sex. The
complainant claims the subject has asked her "more than once," if she wants "company"
in the restroom. The subject allegedly told the complainant, “Those pants make your ass
look great.” The allegation of Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature was sustained.
The subject received a 10 day suspension. (2016-07867)

Appendices
Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2016
With 68.84 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

On-Duty Misconduct

Non Inmate
Related
15

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL

47
68

62
6

Inattention to Duty

Failure to Follow Policy

Unprofessional Conduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Off-Duty Misconduct

Breach of Security

Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates

Introduction of Contraband

Investigative Violations

23
27
27

Sexual Abuse of Inmates

Unauthorized Release of Information

Abuse of Inmates

Bribery

Discrimination

1
4

5
4

Appendices
Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2015
With 86.60 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

Non Inmate
Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL
7

Unprofessional Conduct

Inattention to Duty

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Failure to Follow Policy

Off-Duty Misconduct

Breach of Security

Introduction of Contraband
Inappropriate Relationships With
Inmates

Investigative Violations

12
6

Abuse of Inmates

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Unauthorized Release of
Information

Discrimination

Bribery

Appendices
Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2014
With 94.10 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

Non Inmate
Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL
8

Unprofessional Conduct

Inattention to Duty

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Failure to Follow Policy
Off-Duty Misconduct

Breach of Security

Introduction of Contraband
Inappropriate Relationships With
Inmates

Investigative Violations

20
9

Abuse of Inmates

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Unauthorized Release of
Information

Discrimination

Bribery

Appendices

Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2013
With 98.10 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

Non Inmate
Related

Personnel Prohibitions

Off-Duty

TOTAL
7

Unprofessional Conduct

Inattention to Duty

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Failure to Follow Policy
Off-Duty Misconduct
Breach of Security
Introduction of Contraband
Inappropriate Relationships With
Inmates

Investigative Violations

20
9

Abuse of Inmates

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Unauthorized Release of
Information

Discrimination

Bribery

Appendices
Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2012
With 99.59 Percent Closed
Number of Sustained Allegations
Type of Misconduct

Inmate
Related

Non Inmate
Related

Personnel Prohibitions
Unprofessional Conduct

Off-Duty

TOTAL
6

On-Duty Misconduct

Fiscal Improprieties

Inattention to Duty

Failure to Follow Policy
Off-Duty Misconduct

Breach of Security

Introduction of Contraband
Inappropriate Relationships With
Inmates

Investigative Violations

27
8

Abuse of Inmates

Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Unauthorized Release of
Information

Discrimination

Bribery

Appendices
Types of Misconduct
Abuse of Inmates
Physical Abuse of Inmates
Excessive Use of Force
Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse
Retaliation
Sexual Abuse of Inmates
Aggravated Sexual Abuse - §2241
Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward - §2242/2243
Abusive Sexual Contact - §2244
Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature
Introduction of Contraband
Soft Item Introduction
Weapons Introduction
Escape Paraphernalia Introduction
Money Introduction
Marijuana Introduction
Heroin & Derivatives Introduction
Cocaine Introduction
Other Unspecified Drugs Introduction
Alcoholic Beverages Introduction
Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction
Creatine/Weightlifting Supplement Introduction
Cigarettes/Tobacco Introduction
Discrimination
Fiscal Improprieties
Time and Attendance Irregularities
Abuse of Sick Leave
Voucher Falsification
Theft/Misuse of Government Funds
Theft/Misuse of Government Property
Misuse of Government Computers
Improper Procurement Procedures
Failure to Pay Government Charge Card
Misuse of Travel Charge Card
Misuse of Purchase Charge Card
Misuse of SmartPay 2 Credit Card
41

Appendices
Theft/Misuse of Employees' Club Funds
Theft/Misuse of AFGE/Union Funds
Theft of Inmate Funds
Theft/Destruction of Inmate Property
Theft/Misuse of Contractor Funds
Theft/Misuse of Contractor Property
Failure to Account for Inmate Funds/Property
Theft of Employee Funds/Property
Misuse of UNICOR Resources
Contract Fraud
Bribery
Bribery
Conspiracy to Commit Bribery
Inappropriate Relationship With Inmates
Soliciting/Accepting Anything of Value
Offering/Giving Anything of Value
Improper Contact With an Inmate/Inmate's Family
Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship
Misuse of Inmate Labor
Preferential Treatment of Inmates
Investigative Violations
Concealing a Material Fact
Refusing to Cooperate
Lying During an Investigation
Providing a False Statement
Altering/Destroying Evidence/Documents
Refusing to Submit to a Search
Interfering With/Impeding an Investigation
Advising Someone to Violate Policy
Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation
Lack of Candor
Personnel Prohibitions
Threatening/Intimidating Employees (relates to personnel actions)
Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations
Falsification of Employment Records
Misuse of Official Position/Badge
Inappropriate Supervisor/Subordinate Relationship
Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices
Use/Abuse of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol
42

Appendices
Absent Without Leave
Retaliation
Refusing to Take a Drug Test
Unauthorized Release of Information
Other On-Duty Misconduct
Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature
Inattention to Duty1
Failure to Respond to an Emergency
Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates
Breach of Security1
Breach of Computer Security1
Falsification of Documents
Unprofessional Conduct1
Failure to Follow Policy1
Gambling/Promotion of Gambling
Endangering the Safety of an Inmate
Endangering the Safety of Others
Providing False Information Other Than During an Official Investigation
Insubordination
Accidental Discharge of a Firearm
Soliciting/Sale of Goods on Government Property
Job Favoritism
Workplace Violence
Failure to Meet Performance Standards
Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions
Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims
Conduct Unbecoming a Management Official
Off-Duty Misconduct
Arrest and Conviction
Failure to Report Arrest
Failure to Pay Just Debts
Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval
DWI/DUI
Domestic Violence
Traffic Citation
Carrying an Unregistered/Concealed Firearm
Discreditable Behavior
Falsification of Records/Documents
Other Citation (Hunting, etc.)
Conflict of Interest
_______
1Due

to the frequency of this type of misconduct, it is identified separately throughout this report.

Monitoring Assignments
Effective August 30, 2017
Alderson, WV...........................(Beverley Brown)
Aliceville, AL…………………….(Mike Burton)
Allenwood, PA...............................(Brian Cregan)
Ashland, KY .................................... (Wade Houk)
Atlanta, GA...................................(Chris Swiulec)
Atwater, CA................................(Diana Lofstead)
Bastrop, TX......................................(Bill Lowery)
Beaumont, TX.................................(Marty Vogel)
Beckley, WV.............................(Beverley Brown)
Bennettsville, SC.............................(Mike Burton)
Berlin, NH.................................. (Pete Farrington)
Big Sandy, KY..........................(Beverley Brown)
Big Spring, TX............................... (Andy Tietjen)
Brooklyn, NY................................. (Andy Tietjen)
Bryan, TX .......................................... (Jeff James)
Butner, NC.....................................(Brian Cregan)
Canaan, PA ................................... (Janis Johnson)
Carswell, TX..................................(Brian Cregan)
Chicago, IL ................................ (Pete Farrington)
Coleman, FL .................................(Chris Swiulec)
Cumberland, MD ..................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Danbury, CT ...............................(Diana Lofstead)
Devens, MA................................... (Andy Tietjen)
Dublin, CA..................................(Diana Lofstead)
Duluth, MN...............................(Stephen Buckler)
Edgefield, SC................................(Chris Swiulec)
El Reno, OK..............................(Beverley Brown)
Elkton, OH................................. (Pete Farrington)
Englewood, CO................................ (Wade Houk)
Estill, SC.................................... (Pete Farrington)
Fairton, NJ.......................................(Mike Burton)
Florence, CO...................................(Marty Vogel)
Forrest City, AR........................... (David Rhodes)
Fort Worth, TX .................................. (Jeff James)
Fort Dix, NJ .................................(Erik Anderson)
Gilmer, WV...................................... (Wade Houk)
Grand Prairie, TX............................... (Jeff James)
Greenville, IL............................... (David Rhodes)
Guaynabo, PR ...........................(Beverley Brown)
Hazelton, WV ................................ (Jerry Cramer)
Herlong, CA................................(Diana Lofstead)
Honolulu, HI................................... (Marty Vogel)
Houston, TX....................................... (Jeff James)
Jesup, GA....................................... (Mike Burton)
La Tuna, TX...................................(Jerry Cramer)
Leavenworth, KS...................... (Stephen Buckler)

Lee, VA.......................................... (Mike Burton)
Lewisburg, PA.......................... (Stephen Buckler)
Lexington, KY............................ (Pete Farrington)
Lompoc, CA.....................................(Wade Houk)
Loretto, PA............................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Los Angeles, CA ................................ (Jeff James)
Manchester, KY ........................... (Chris Swiulec)
Marianna, FL................................. (Brian Cregan)
Marion, IL ....................................... (Bill Lowery)
Mendota, CA.................................. (Marty Vogel)
McCreary, KY..................................(Wade Houk)
McDowell, WV..............................(Andy Tietjen)
McKean, PA............................... (Pete Farrington)
Memphis, TN ..................................... (Jeff James)
Miami (FDC & FCI), FL...............(Janis Johnson)
MXRO, MD ..................................(Janis Johnson)
Milan, MI .......................................(Jerry Cramer)
Montgomery, AL.......................... (David Rhodes)
Morgantown , WV...................... (Diana Lofstead)
New York, NY ......................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
NCRO, KS................................ (Stephen Buckler)
NERO, PA....................................... (Bill Lowery)
Oakdale, LA ....................................... (Jeff James)
Oklahoma, OK ......................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Otisville, NY .................................(Janis Johnson)
Oxford, WI .......................................(Wade Houk)
Pekin, IL................................... (Stephen Buckler)
Pensacola, FL ............................(Peter Farrington)
Petersburg, VA..........................(Beverley Brown)
Philadelphia, PA....................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Phoenix, AZ ................................. (David Rhodes)
Pollock, LA ....................................(Andy Tietjen)
Ray Brook, NY......................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Rochester, MN ......................... (Stephen Buckler)
Safford, AZ................................... (David Rhodes)
San Diego, CA............................ (Diana Lofstead)
Sandstone, MN................................... (Jeff James)
Schuylkill, PA............................ (Pete Farrington)
Seagoville, TX ............................(Diana Lofstead)
SeaTac, WA................................... (Jerry Cramer)
Sheridan, OR................................. (Janis Johnson)
SCRO, TX.......................................... (Jeff James)
SERO, GA........................................(Bill Lowery)
Springfield, MO........................(Stephen Buckler)

Monitoring Assignments
Talladega, AL ................................ (Jerry Cramer)
Tallahassee, FL ............................ (David Rhodes)
Terminal Island, CA....................(Diana Lofstead)
Terre Haute, IN ........................ (Stephen Buckler)
Texarkana, TX..................................(Wade Houk)
Thomson, IL……………….…(Stephen Buckler)
Three Rivers, TX...................... (Jeff McLaughlin)
Tucson, AZ.................................... (Brian Cregan)
Victorville, CA................................ (Bill Lowery)
Waseca, MN..............................(Beverley Brown)
WRO, CA................................... (Diana Lofstead)
Williamsburg, SC....................... (Pete Farrington)
Yankton, SD............................. (Stephen Buckler)
Yazoo City, MS........................ (Jeff McLaughlin)