Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11388
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11277
 2-PATH-EW-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of Employer:

 1. That under the current Agreement the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) unjustly dismissed Power Railman Bruce Piechocki effective June 28, 1985.

 2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to restore Power Railman Bruce Piechocki to service with seniority unimpaired and with all pay due him from the first day he was held out of service, at the applicable Power Railman's rate of pay for each day he has been improperly held from service; and with all benefits due him under the group hospital and life insurance policies for the aforementioned period; and all railroad retirement benefits due him, including sickness benefits for the aforementioned period; and all vacation and holiday benefits due him under the current vacation and holiday agreements for the aforementioned period; and all other benefits that would normally have accrued to him had he been working in the aforementioned period in order to make him whole; and expunge his record.

 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 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.

At the relevant time, Claimant had 11 years of service with the Carrier. As a result of charges dated July 9, 1985, Hearing on July 18, 1985, and by letter dated August 6, 1985, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 The record is undisputed. Claimant was entrusted with payroll checks belonging to three other employees. Claimant forged the names of two of the employees on their respective checks, cashed those checks without permission of those employees and kept the proceeds.
 Form 1 Award No. 11388
 Page 2 Docket No. 11277
 2-PATH-EW-'87
 Our review function does not involve a substitution of our judgment
 for that of the Carrier or a de novo determination of the facts or merits of
 the case. It is well established that we are confined to determining whether
 substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Carrier's decision
 that discipline should be imposed and if substantial evidence is found, then
 we can only set aside the discipline in the event that it is shown that the
 Carrier was arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or abused its discretion.
 See e.g. Third Division Award 26207.
 Rule 7 prohibits dishonest or illegal acts. Claimant committed theft
 and forgery. Thus, more than substantial evidence in the record supports the
 Carrier's determination that Claimant violated Rule 7. Indeed, Claimant does
 not contest the allegations made against him.
 The Organization contends, however, that Claimant is a compulsive
 gambler and has received treatment for such illness. According to the Organ
 ization, Claimant should be afforded the same consideration that the Carrier
 has given alcoholics and drug abusers who have caused greater damage to the
 Carrier than Claimant did in this case. Thus, the Organization's argument
 goes to the alleged arbitrary or discriminatory action by the Carrier in
 assessing dismissal as a penalty.
 Upon consideration of the record, we must reject the Organization's
 position. First, we note that the record is devoid of any evidence beyond the
 mere assertion that the Carrier has treated employees suffering from alcohol-

 ism or drug addiction differently than Claimant. Nor is there any evidence r
 that an employee suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction was charged with
 theft or forgery and treated differently than Claimant. Second, even assuming
 that the Organization is correct and that compulsive gambling is a recognized
 illness and that alcoholics and drug abusers have been disciplined short of
 dismissal as a result of their condition, we note that Claimant has not been
 charged with the symptoms of his illness, i.e., gambling. Claimant has been
 charged with and has admitted to theft and forgery. The analogy drawn by the
 Organization is to an individual who is suffering from alcoholism or drug
 addiction and is then disciplined as a result of his asserted illness (for
 example, for working under the influence or being in possession and then being
 charged with those acts.) Such is not the case herein. Under the circum
 stances, we do not believe the analogy to be appropriate to the facts pre
 sented in this case. Therefore, we cannot say that evidence or reason exists
 in this record for us to conclude that the Carrier was either arbitrary,
 discriminatory, capricious or abused its discretion.
 A W A R D




Attest:
        ancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of November 1987. low