Which statement best describes the order of the three levels of appeal from lowest to highest?

Which statement best describes the order of the three levels of appeal from lowest to highest?

• A. PRC, Facility Manager, Chief Hearing Examiner
• B. Chief Hearing Examiner, PRC, Facility Manager
• C. Facility Manager, PRC, Chief Hearing Examiner
• D. PRC, Chief Hearing Examiner, Facility Manager

Answer: (A)

Understanding how disciplinary appeals are reviewed helps you see why this order fits best. The first level of appeal is a review by the Prison Review Committee, which acts as the initial check on the decision. If the outcome isn’t satisfactory, the case moves up to the Facility Manager for another institutional-level review. If the issue is still not resolved, the matter goes to the Chief Hearing Examiner for the final, higher-level review within the system. This establishes a clear escalation path from the lowest to the highest authority: PRC first, then the Facility Manager, then the Chief Hearing Examiner. Other sequences either place the Chief Hearing Examiner too early in the process or reorder the bodies in a way that doesn’t reflect how the review is designed to progress.

Understanding how disciplinary appeals are reviewed helps you see why this order fits best. The first level of appeal is a review by the Prison Review Committee, which acts as the initial check on the decision. If the outcome isn’t satisfactory, the case moves up to the Facility Manager for another institutional-level review. If the issue is still not resolved, the matter goes to the Chief Hearing Examiner for the final, higher-level review within the system. This establishes a clear escalation path from the lowest to the highest authority: PRC first, then the Facility Manager, then the Chief Hearing Examiner. Other sequences either place the Chief Hearing Examiner too early in the process or reorder the bodies in a way that doesn’t reflect how the review is designed to progress.