Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9759
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9097--1
 2-BN-I-MA-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Josef P. Sirefman when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employer:
1. That on August 3, 1979, claimant, Jerry L. Bent, was dismissed from the services o f the Burlington Northern, Inc. for allegedly falsifying his expense account for the dates of June 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1979. Claimant's dismissal was unjust and wrongful and that he was not granted a fair and impartial investigation.
2. That accordingly, the carrier be order to reinstate claimant in the services of Burlington Northern, Inc. with his seniority rights fully restored and his wage loss fully compensated.
Findings: a

 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 employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employer within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


Claimant, J. L. Bent, Traveling Mechanic, was charged on July 9, 1979 with "falsi fying your expense account for the month of June on June 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 ...". An investigation was held on July 16, 1979, and on August 3, 1979 tl'Je Carrier notified Claimant of dismissal -

Form 1 Award No. 9759
 Page 2 Docket No. 9097-I -400
 2-BN-I-MA-'84
 There appears to have been a misunderstanding concerning representation for
 Claimant at the investigation. Nevertheless, a review of the record before this
 Board establishes that Claimant received a fair and impartial hearing. Claimant's
 representation on his own behalf was effective, and the information developed at
 the investigation was substantially the same as that which had already been supplied
 by Claimant to his Foreman some days earlier. The notice of investigation
 contemplated all aspects of the claimed falsification, including the means by
 which Claimant travelled to the more distant motel than that was available nearer
 the job site. Thus, the. use of a company truck for that purpose was inextricably
 linked to Claimant's choice of motel. That the details surfaced at the investigation
 did not bar the Carrier from considering them when making the determination to
 terminate.
To accomodate a friend Claimant selected a motel which had a swimming pool some 18 miles from the job site, paid for a double occupancy rate, and put in for total reimbursement. It strains credulity to accept the assertion that Claimant was "in error" when he put in for the full rate. Claimant had ample knowledge of the single occupancy rate, substantially lower than-the double occupancy rate; he was aware that he had booked for double occupancy and would be charged accordingly; and was aware of the extra mileage involved in selecting the farther motel but did not seek authorization for that distance. Nevertheless, Claimant put in for the five days at the higher rate, and did not concede an "error" until the Foreman called his attention to the overcharge. There was substantial evidence to sustain the Carrier's decisidn that there was no error, and to discipline Claimant. Given his relatively short period of service with Carrier, his awareness of Rule 661, and the severity of the violation termination was a reasonable penalty.





                              By Order of Second Division


ATTEST
          Nanc ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 11th day of January, 1984