Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 865
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 857
 2-SPT-FO-'81
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ~ Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:










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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively v~- _r:~ex and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 2i_ 1934_

 This D~ ~is~.._^.~ :f t'iw Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hereino

Claimant, a laborer, was charged with falsifying his time card in violation. of carrier general rule 801 (which prohibits employe dishonesty) on January 16, 1979. After a plenary hearing on January 23, 1979, the carrier dismissed the claimant from service. Subsequently, asserting that the discipline has served its purpose, the carrier reinstated the claimant to his position, without back pay, on or about May 10, 1979. The claimant actually reported back to work on June 27, 1979. The reinstatement was without prejudice and the claimant properly progressed his claim for back wages to this Board.
 Form 1 Award No. 8659
 Page 2 Docket No. 8574
 2-SPT-FO-'81

 While most of the facts are uncontested there are two critical factual disputes. Claimant did not work on January 1 through January 7, 1979. January 8, 1979, he inserted his time card into the time clock. Due to a mechanical malfunction, the stamp appearing on the card marked the starting time for January 1, 1979. The claimant brought the time card to his foreman and asked how he should correct the error. The foreman instructed the claimant to manually complete the time for January 8, 1979 and the claimant complied. At this point, the claimant and his foreman related contradictory versions of the events. According to the claimant, after punching his time card, he followed his habit of filling in the remaining times for breaks and for the end of his shift before he noticed the machine had stamped in the time for the incorrect date. The foreman testified that except for the time clock stamp, the remaining times for January 1, 1979 were not completed when the claimant presented him the card and asked how to rectify the error. The foreman looked at the card several times after January 8, 1979, and he did not observe the completed times for January 1, 1979 until January 15, 1979. Upon discovering the time card discrepancy, the foreman reported the matter to his supervisor. The second factual controversy concerns whether the claimant had the required intent to misrepresent his hours worked on January 1, 1979. The organization argues that the record reveals no substantive evidence to demonstrate claimant intended to obtain eight hours pay for January 1, 1979. The carrier contends that it may properly rely on the foreman's testimony and that an irrefutable presumption of claimant's wrongful intent arises from the sudden insertion of the remaining times for January 1, 1979 right before claimant's pay was to be computed.

 To satisfy its burden of proof, the record must contain substantial evidence demonstrating claimant intended to cause the carrier to pay him wages for January 1, 1979. Intent is a state of mind which is not shown by direct evidence but rather a wrongful intent must be manifested from all the surrounding circumstances. Without proving wrongful intent, the claimant's alleged time card falsification is merely a mistake. Fourth Division Award No. 3552 (Scearce). After carefully reviewing the record, we find the evidence insufficient to support a finding of fraudulent intent. On the contrary, most of the objective facts indicate claimant was confused and comitted an unintentional error. The entire problem grew out of a time clock error which the claimant promptly reported to his foreman. On January 8, 1979, the foreman knew not only that claimant did not work on January 1, 1979 but also that there was an error on the card for the same date. Regardless of whether or not the remaining shift time were filled in on January 8, 1979 or thereafter, the claimant could hardly expect the carrier to pay for time that he had already reported as incorrect. The record discloses that the combination of an improperly functioning time machine and a confused employe resulted in the erroneous time card. Thus, the carrier failed to prove the claimant intended to falsify his time card for January 1, 1979.

 Rule 33(a) expressly provides for the compensatory remedy in this case. Claimant is entitled to net wages lost for the period from January 31, 1979 to June 27, 1979 at the rate of pay then in effect under the applicable agreement. Claimant's request for overtime, interest and other retroactive benefits is denied. We have consistently ruled that net wages lost means all earnings the claimant gained from other employment or received in unemployment during the period he was out of service shall be deducted from our back pay award.
 Form 1 Award No. 865
 Page 3 Docket No. 8574
 2-SPT-FO-181




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _
 B,,/ osemarie Brasch - AdAinistrative Assistant

 Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March, 1981.