Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ALLTUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11126
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11222
 2-BN-EW-187
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Communications Electronic Technician D. M. Smith was unjustly withheld and later dismissed from the service of the Burlington Northern Railroad as the result of an investigation held May 15, 1985.

 2. That the investigation held on May 15, 1985 was not a fair and impartial investigation in that Electronic Technician Smith did not receive required advance written notice of the full and specific charges for which the investigation was being held and for which he was later disciplined.

 3. That Electronic Technician Smith was further denied the required fair and impartial investigation when the same Carrier Officer preferred the charges, conducted the investigation, dispensed the discipline and demonstrated clear prejudicial conduct in allowing hearsay testimony while at the same time denying Mr. Smith the right to cross-examine or confront those whose testimony was presented against him.

 4. That accordingly, the Burlington Northern Railroad be directed to reinstate Electronic Technician D. M. Smith to its service with undisturbed full seniority rights, compensate him for all wages lost while withheld or dismissed from service, compensate him for or restore all rights he is entitled to under the Agreement which were lost or adversely affected by his dismissal, and that all record of the subject investigation be removed from his personal record. Claim begins May 7, 1985, and continues until Technician Smith is restored to service and made whole.

 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 employes 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 11126
 Page 3 Docket No. 11222
 2-BN-EW-187
 at 8 a.m., Monday, May 6, 1985, and at 8 a.m.,
 Tuesday, May 7, 1985, and for the purpose of in
 vestigating your alleged violation of General Rule
 566 at the BN Technical Training Center, Kansas
 City, Missouri, about 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 7,
 1985. Arrange for representative and/or witnesses
 if desired, in accordance with governing provisions
 of prevailing schedule rules.
 This is to advise that you are being withheld from
 service pending results of the investigation.
 Please acknowledge receipt by affixing your signa
 ture in the space provided on copy of this letter
 and return to this office promptly."

 The Notice was over the signature of Carrier's Superintendent of Ccrununications.



A copy of the Transcript of the Investigation conducted on May 15, 1985, has been made a part of the record. We have reviewed the Transcript and find that the Investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. None of Claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated. It was not improper to accept medical reports into the record of the Investigation without the writer thereof being present. Claimant was notified of his dismissal from service on May 28, 1985. deb find that substantial evidence was adduced at the Investigation in support of the charges against Claimant. Claimant was clearly guilty of conduct that cannot be condoned. Usually a blood alcohol test of 0.10$ is considered intoxicated under laws pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles. It is also evident that Claimant tampered with the urine samples given for the urinalysis. There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed.