(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employee
 PARTIES TO DISRPTE:
 (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond
 ( and John H. McArthur, Trustees of the
 ( Property of Penn Central Transportation
 Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on Claimant, S. V. Frankiewicz, Clerk at the Carrier's Frankford Trail Van Yard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 (b) Claimant, S. V. Frankiewicz' record be cleared of the charges brought against him on October 16, 1973.

 (c) Claimant S. V. Frankiewicz be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, and be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of service, plus interest at 6%r per annum compounded daily.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline dispute in which Claimant, an
 employe with thirty~aine years of service, was dis
 charged. He was charged with unauthorized possession of a color television
 set which was removed from a trailer in the terminal in which he worked.
 The record discloses that a trailer was burglarized between 8:30 P.M. and
 3:30 A.M. on October 11 - 12, 1973 and eleven television sets were roved,
 while the trailer was enroute from the manufacturer to the ultimate con
 signee and while the trailer was in the terminal in question. The FBI,
 who had been investigating thefts at the terminal, stopped Claimant upon
 his leaving work at about 8:00 A. M. on October 12th and found one of the
 stolen sets in the trunk of his car.

 The key questions in this case are whether or not Claimant committed a punishable act and if so warranted. It must be noted that Claimant explained the facts by indicating that during his coffee b to a nearby restaurant and in the parking lot of that restaurant an unknown man approached him and o He paid cash for the set and put it into the trunk of his car; he received no receipt for the transaction.


First it must be noted that this Hoard may not make any credibility findings; that prerogative i officer. Clearly, in this dispute the hearing officer did not credit Claimant's story. It is also noted that there is no allegation that Claimant "stole" the TV set. Petitioner asserts that there was no proof that Claimant committed a .punishable act and furthermore under no circumstances should Claimant, wi have been dismissed.

 At best, from Petitioner's point of view, Claimant bought and was in possession of stolen goods, which had been removed from Carrier's property. Whether or not Claimant's action constituted a criminal offense is immaterial to this case. Under the most reasonable interpretation, Claimant's actions in purchasing the TV, arguendo, was dishonest per se, since it was obviously stolen merchandise. Certainly after his many years of service he must have at least suspected the nature of the merchandise and it was common knowledge that pilferage was a serious problem with Carrier.

 We concur in the opinion expressed in Award 16168, in which this Hoard said:

        "Dishonesty, in any form, is a matter of serious concern and dishonesty usually and frequently results in dismissal from the service of a carrier.


        This Hoard has held on numerous occasions that dismissal from service for dishonest acts is not an excessive application of discipline or an abuse of discret


On many occasions this Hoard has held that years of service alone does not mitigate improper conduct by employes and this case is no exception. While we are reluctant for long service employes, it cannot be said that the decision of Carrier in this case was arbitrary or capricious; the Carrier possesses considerable latitude in the imposit herein we are not inclined to substitute oar judgment for that of Carrier (see Awards 9045, 1$006 and many others).

 For all the reasons indicated and based on the entire record, the Claim must be denied.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;

                    Award Number 21323 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21146


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A 8 D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST.
      · Executive Secre ary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1976.