
    Argued June 21,
    affirmed in part; reversed in part July 30, 1979
    MICHAEL SAGERSER, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
    
    (No. 02-79-141, CA 13582)
    597 P2d 1257
    David E. Groom, Public Defender’s office, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Gillette, and Campbell, Judges.
    GILLETTE, J.
   GILLETTE, J.

In this prison discipline case, petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violations of prison disciplinary Rule 1 (OAR 291-40-050(1)) — Disruptive Behavior and Rule 10 (OAR 291-40-050(10)) — Disobedience of an Order.

Petitioner plead guilty to violating Rule 1. As to the disobedience charge, however, we are unable to discern from the sparse record in this case precisely what order petitioner is supposed to have violated. Accordingly, his conviction for violating Rule 10 must be reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part. 
      
       OAR 291-40-050(1) provides:
      "(1) Disruptive Behavior. No inmate shall engage in the advocation, encouragement, promotion, or creation of a disturbance.
      "A 'disturbance’ is a substantial disorder characterized by unruly, noisy, or violent conduct which disrupts the orderly administration of the institution or creates an unreasonably annoying condition which poses a direct threat to the security and/or safety of the institution.”
     
      
       OAR 291-40-050(10) provides:
      "Disobedience of An Order. No inmate shall fail to promptly comply with a valid order of a staff member.”
     
      
      
        See Calhoun v. OSP, 41 Or App 339, 597 P2d 1250 (decided this date).
     