ACT Policing and AFP officers face two years jail for accessing information off the Police Real-Time Management information System (PROMIS) not in line with their official duties.

The matter was subject of an internal conduct report obtained by the Canberra Times under a freedom of information request.

The heavily redacted report does not provide the nature of the tipoff but the author of the report believed the officers involved "gained no benefit".

It is understood one of the officers at the AFP's Majura complex had acquired information only available from the tipoff, despite not being involved in the investigation.

This officer then passed it to at least one other at the Woden Police Station.

The internal watchdog dropped the criminal investigation after failing to determine how the officer gained access to the Crime Stoppers tipoff.

Despite an audit of the PROMIS database showing the officers involved accessed the database to look at the tipoff, the redacted report does not clarify why investigators were unable to link them to the breach.

Instead they forced one of the officers involved to undergo formal counselling.

It is understood at least two officers were involved in the misuse of the database.

Do you know more? Get in touch via finbar.omallon@fairfaxmedia.com.au or using the app Signal on your smart phone via +61 437 464 126.

In February 2015, an anonymous source provided information to Crime Stoppers which was recorded to the PROMIS system.

But it is understood in June that year, an officer submitted a report to the Professional Standards committee that another officer had disclosed details to him only available in the tipoff.

It is understood at least one other officer at the Woden Police Station was involved in the breach.

In October 2015, investigators sat down with one of the officers involved for a criminal interview regarding the breach before interviewing officers at Woden Police station in February 2016.

But they dropped the criminal investigation later that month after being unable to determine how the officer came across the Crime Stoppers report despite computer logs showing the involved officers had accessed the report.

Despite this, another investigating officer tried to interview one of the alleged offenders in March. That interview is redacted but they were still unable to determine how the officers accessed the Crime Stoppers report.

While the investigators established a breach had been made they were forced to downgrade the level of the complaint and determined none of the officers involved had benefited.

The officers involved were forced to undergo formal counselling and told if investigators ever establish how the breach occurred, they faced "employment suitability considerations".

ACT Policing could not comment on the matter as the serious nature of the complaint meant it was an internal AFP investigation.

An AFP spokesperson said it would not be appropriate to confirm or deny if the officers involved were still ACT Policing members.

A criminal prosecution requires the existence of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a person's actions and intentions meet the criminal threshold," the spokesperson said.

"This matter was finalised administratively as a code of conduct investigation as there was insufficient evidence to meet a criminal threshold for prosecution."

Meanwhile in April, the AFP revealed an officer had illegally accessed phone records of a journalist under the government's metadata retention laws.