This is a petition for review of a final order of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary as authorized by ORS 421.195. ① Petitioner was charged by a correction officer with violating several rules of the institution, specifically: loitering, disobeying a direct order; displaying disrespect to the staff; menac *88 ing and exhibiting major disruptive behavior. Following investigation and hearing the Disciplinary Committee found petitioner guilty of all charges except that of menacing. The Committee recommended 90 days’ segregation, which recommendation was adopted by the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary.

Petitioner urges that the sanction of 90 days’ segregation was excessive considering the misconduct involved. However, he does not allege that the order is either unconstitutional or unlawful. Absent a demonstration óf unconstitutionality or unlawfulness, there is no authority for this court to alter the punishment. ORS 421.195; ORS 183.480 (7) (a) and (b). ②

Petitioner points out that he did not receive the official order of the superintendent adopting the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee until five days after the hearing was concluded, and contends that this is a violation of Eule IV (5) (d) of the Procedures for Disciplinary Action. He does not claim prejudice. His contention is without merit. The rule in question merely requires that the written decision of the Disciplinary Committee be issued within three days. This was done.

Petitioner’s contention that he received multiple punishment in that one act on his part was “carved” into separate acts for the purposes of punishment is *89 without merit. Assuming for the sake of argument that it would be improper for the disciplinary rules to permit one transaction to be divided into several infractions, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the single sanction imposed would be unlawful even if based on only one of the infractions with which he was charged.

Finally, petitioner’s due-process argument has been answered adversely to his position by Bonney v. OSP, 16 Or App 509, 519 P2d 383 (1974).

Affirmed.