Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9226
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9011
 2-MP-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered,
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ~ and Canada


Dispute: Claim of Employer:
















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 aver the dispute involved herein.
Form 1 Award No. 9226
 Page 2 Docket No. 9011
 2-MP-CM-'82

 This claim arises out of disciplinary proceeding involving two investigations which resulted in the dismissal of Claimant for failing to protect his assignment on March 17, 1979, assuming the position of sleep on April 3, 1879, for being tardy April 3 and 6, 1979, and for falsifying time cards. The Board is initially presented with a procedural issue, which must be addressed prior to any review of the merits.

 The Organization asserts Carrier violated Rule 32 and failed to hold and act promptly upon the April 6, 1979, investigation by waiting until may 4, 1979, to issue discipline. Carrier also is claimed to have violated Rule 31 by failing to give any reason for declining claim of local chairman.

 The Claimant's first investigation was postponed from April 3 to April 6, 1979 at his request. A second investigation was held May I, 197g, involving charges which occurred on April 3 and 6, 1979. Discipline was not issued after the April 6 hearing, but was specifically incorporated into the may 4, 1979, notice of dismissal. Review of these procedures convinces this Board that no substantial evidence exists to support charge that Carrier violated Rule 32 with respect to timeliness of hearing and issuance of discipline.

 The letter from Carrier to Local Chairman declining the claim reads as follows:





The Organization holds that the last paragraph of the Superintendent's letter gives no reason for declining the claim. This Board has consistently ruled that no particular form or language is required in advancing reasons for or denying claims. In prior awards, the statement: "There is no basis for the claim and it is accordingly denied" has been deemed a sufficient reason for rejection. Third Division Awards 16576 (Engelstein) and 15726 (Mesigh). In this case, carrier's denial referred to a review of the investigations, which are the basis for assessing discipline. Notwithstanding, this Board has reached a contrary conclusion where the answer does nothing more than state the claim is denied. Second Division Award 7371 (Franden) reviewed awards relating to such declinations and concluded:



Form 1 Award No. 9226
 Page 3 Docket No. 8011
 2-MP-CM-'82
 declined. No reference is made to earlier denial letters of
 conferences, to the Carrier's position that no rule in the
 agreement has been violated, to a defense based upon the
 claim lucking basis or anything indicating whether the claim
 is being denied on the merits or on some procedural issue.
 The provisions of Article V paragraph (a) have been rather
 liberally construed but we believe that to hold that the
 letter declining the claim in the instant case meets the
 requirements of that paragraph would in effect remove from
 the agreement the words 'notify whoever filed the claim or
 grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing
 of the reasons for such disallowance."

 with benefit of this review, the Board finds the evidence in this case supports the conclusions that Carrier's letter of June 8, 1979, is proper and complies with Rule 32, thereby constituting sufficient disallowance of the claim.

 The burden of proof rests with the Carrier. Despite numerous arguments of
 unfairness and bias, we cannot find support of this defense in the record.
 Claimant did not deny he failed to protect his assignment on March 17, 1979, or
 that he was tardy on April 3, 1979. While there exists conflict over Claimant's
 falsification of time cards, sleeping, and being tardy on April 6, we are
 satisfied Carrier's resolution of this conflicting testimony was supported by
 a preponderance of the evidence. Claimant's denials are not credible. The Board
 will not disturb the conclusions reached or the discipline imposed.
 A WAR D
 Claim denied.
                            By Order of Second Division


        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


~ I

 `~'~Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.