At the outset, the Board has carefully reviewed the various procedural and due process contentions advanced by the organization. However, we find no evidence to set this matter aside on that basis.

With respect to the merits, the record shows that the Claimant, on November 8, 1990, objected to an assignment of work. Within a few minutes thereafter, he claimed that he had injured his back. He then went to a local hospital for examination, but afterwards did not call his Supervisor, as he had been asked to do. The physical examination at the hospital revealed no sign of an injury as claimed by the Claimant. On the following day (November 9, 1990), the Claimant was seen by the Carrier's Medical officer who determined that the Claimant could return to work immediately.

Subsequently, the Claimant provided a note from his personal physician which stated, in relevant part, that the Claimant could riot work commencing November 8, 1990, because of a "lumbar injury." He was then examined by an orthopedic specialist who found nothing wrong with the Claimant.

On the basis of our review of the testimony adduced at the

Hearing and the other evidence submitted, we have no basis for r,irr overturning the Carrier's decision in this matter.

This Board has held that falsification of an on-duty injury is an offense which may properly lead to dismissal. In summary, it cannot be said that the discharge of the Claimant was arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.

A W A R D