Form 1 RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJT7SI`i~TTIEVI` BOARD Award No. 8894
 SECOND D TVISION Docket No. 8727
 2-C&NW-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John J. Mikrut, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the. United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


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 employe 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.

Claimant, a Cayman at Carrier°s Clinton, Iowa, Car Shops, applied for a Leave of Absence on or about April 27,_ 19TH, citing "Personal Illness". Said leave was granted by Carrier and later it was extended from August 28, 1977 to February 28, 1978. On February 28, 19°8, the expiration date of his leave of absence, Claimant had not yet reported for work nor had he filed for a second renewal thereof. On November 6, 1978, Claimant stir had not yet contacted Carrier regarding his leave status and so Carrier's Superintendent at Clinton, Iowa facility wrote a letter to Claimant informing him as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 8$94
 Page 2 Docket No. 872'
 2-C&NW-CM-`82

 Thereupon, a claim was filed on December 4, 1978, by Organization on Claimant's behalf protesting the termination. Said claim was denied by Carrier and now is the basis of the instant dispute,.

 Organization's basic contentions in this dispute are that Claimant was unjustly dismissed and that tic-, was denied a hearing. In support of its position_ Organization maintains that Carrier's termination of Claimant was a violation of Rule 35(a) of the parties` Agreement in that- (1) Carrier completely failed to conduct a hearing in this matter, and. (2) carrier's termination letter of November 6, 1978, which was directed to ClAfarant, was not issued within "°... 30 days from the date information concerning the,. alleged offense has reached the supervising officer" (i.e. -- the February 2£`=, 1978 expiration date of Claimant's Leave of Absence). Continuing on, Organization also argues that Carrier's actioi, were further violative of Rule 3of the Agreement which, according to Organ:izat~:_~ provides that an. employee on leave of abaen.ce will have a "privilege of renewal". In this regard, Organization contends that while on. leave, Claimant was arrested and incarcerated, axed that when his local representative requested an extension of his leave of absence in bis behalf, Carrier refused to grant such an extension.

 Carrier's basis contention in this dispute is that the investigatory hearing referred to in Rule 35(x) applies only to cases involving disciplinaay matters, and that the~irastant case is not such a type of case. Thus, Carrier maintains that it (carrier? "... is riot required to hold an investigation in circumstances wA).e.re an employee fails to return to the Carrier's services after expiration of his leave of absence°°. In further support of its basic contention, Carrier next asserts that: (1) as per Rules 19 and 20 of the parties` Agreement, the Leave of Absence form which was signed by Claimant, both at the time of his original request and his August 28, 19TH renewal thereof, contained a proviso which clearly specified °°®._ that failure to report for duty on or before expiration date will tasol.f in loss of seniority rights and possible pension benefits'°; and (2) Claimant's failure to renew his leave of absence was due to the fact that he was incarcerated at the time as a result of a shooting incident with the local police in which a policeman was shot.

 In summary of its position, Carrier maintains that as a result of Claimant's failure to renew has leave of absence when it expired on February 28, 1978, his employment relationship, and all rights pertaining thereto, ceased to exist at that point (Second Division Awards W", 6338; Third Division Awards 12993, 1639 and 20086).

 The Board, upon a careful and complete review of the total record which lzas been presented inthis dispute, is conv~nced that the specific issue which is involved is not one to which the hearing procedures specified in Rule 35(x) were meant to apply_ Or perhaps as was stated most cogently and succinctly by Referee Hall in Third Division Award 12993, °'(A)n employee removing himself from a Carrier's service by his own voluntary act cannot be held to have been discharged from such service day Carrier as a disciplinary act".
 Form 1 Award No. £$94
 Page 3 Docket No. 8727
 2-C&NW-CM-'82

 Of even greater significance than the foregoing, however, the record clearly shows that Claimant's renewed leave of absence expired on February 28, 1978, and neither he nor any agent functioning on his behalf petitioned Carrier requesting a second extension thereof either on or before the expiration date of the leave itself. Though organization alleges that Claimant's "... local representative requested an extension of his leave of absence in his behalf, but Carrier refused to grant such an extension", there is no supportive evidence whatsoever in the record which would substantiate that such a request had ever been made; or, if so, if said request was made either on, before or after the expiration date of the disputed leave itself. Absent any such showing, the claim cannot be, supported.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 ~emarie Brasch 7-Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of February, 1982.