Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST~NT BOARD Award No. 7+72
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 725
 2-T&P-CM-t78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 ( Texas and Pacific Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and a?rploye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


-'thheld him from service during the period February 26, r 1.
 ~-i 1975 through Ap il 3,

 1975, after he had submitted a signed release from his personal physician on February 26 that he was "able to return to irk," following an operation on January 10, 1975. Claimant therefore seeks compensation for the period from February 26, 1975 to April 13, 1975. Claimant is based in El Paso, Texas.

 On February 28, on March 17, and again on April 1, Claimant was examined by a Carrier local physician. Hollowing the April 1 exarlination, Claimant was advised that he would be released for service, suoject to approval of Carrier's Chief Medical Officer in St. Louis, Mo., in accordance with compar.~y policy. Claimant was notified at 9: 00 a.m., Monday, April l4, 1975, that he could return to work, at which point he asked for and eras granted two weeks vacation, He finally resumed service, after the tv:o-week vacation, on April 28.
 Foam 1 Award No. 7+72
 Page 2 Docket No. 7254
 2-T&P-CM-'78

 The issue before us is whether Claimant was subjected to undue delay after April 1, 1975 in receiving final notice of the decision that he could return to work, after having been judged fit by the Carrier's local physician on that date to resume service.

 In examining the record, we find that on two occasions prior to April 1, 1975, Claimant presented himself to Carrier's local physician fox examination to return to work. On each such occasion, Claimant told Carrier's local physician that he was not feeling well enough to return to work. Each time, Carrier's local physician suggested that Claimant go home and recuperate. Finally, on April 1, 1975, Claimant reported to Carrier's local physician and stated that he felt good enough to return to work. In light of Claimant's own actions, we find that he voluntarily withheld himself from service up to and including the date of April 1, and we will deny that part of the claim.

 Addressing the period of time from April 1 to April 14, 1975, encompassed within the Statement of Claim, we will review the record herein and apply the principles established by our previous decision to the facts of record. The record shows that after examination by a local physician on April 1, the results of this examination were fomrarded to Carrier's Chief Medical Officer. It was not until April 14 that Claimant has advised that the Chief T,-iedica,l Officer had approved his return to work.

 In our Award 7131, involving these same parties, we found that unless there were unusual circumstances, five (5) working days was a sufficient amount of time for Carrier's Chief Medical Officer to evaluate physical examination reports and notify the employee of the approval or disapproval to return to -~,ork. In our A-vrard 7039, again a decision involving these wane parties, we found that in certain instances, days the Chief Medical Officer did. not work should be excluded from the taunt. Here, we find no extenuating circumstances which would seem to justify that an additional amount of time -was required. to review Claimant's medical files. We accordingly find that Claimant should b e compensated for the dates of April 7 through 11, 1975.

 While we have considered the fact that Claimant, upon his approval to return to work, arranged to take a vacation "to go out of town," we have not considered this in reaching our decision. The reason is that Claimant's vacation request z,ras not known to the Carrier at the time it was evaluating Claimant's physical condition. We would suggest, however, that as a matter of courtesy, Claimant should have rude his intentions known during this period.

 Claim sustained to the extent indicated in our findings.
 Foam 1 Award No. 7472
 Page 3 Docket No. 725+
 2--T&P-CM-' 78


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _
 ~s a:cie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at~ Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of February, 1978.