NATIONAL RAIt.ROAD ADJUSggT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 George S. Roukis, Referee

 Award 7,mmber 23052
 Docket Number CL-22920

PARTIES TO DISPUTE; ( might Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 (The Washington Terminal Company

 STATE OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the

 (GL-8828) that.

 System Committee of the Brotherhood

 (a) Carrier violated the rules of the Agreement effective July 1, 1972, particularly Article 18 and others, when effective July 20, 1978s it arbitrarily suspended Mr. George N. Jackson from active service for a period of 20 calendar days.

 (b) Carrier's action in suspending Mr. Jackson from service on unproven charges was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of Carrier's discretion.

 (c) Carrier shall be required to expunge prom his record this disciplinary notation placed thereon, and compensate Mr. Jackson for all the time (20 calendar days) held, out of service, including protective agreement Payments and over-time earnings that would have accrued to him, had he not been suspended from July 20, 1978, to and including August 8, 1978.

 OPT.IGION OF BOARD;

 An investigation was held On July 28, 1978 at the W

 whether Claimant was ashington Terminal Camparyy's Union Station to determine
 guilty of being under the influence of intoxicants while on duty on July 19, 1978, acting is a belligerent man.,P,. toward his foreman and fez-lour employes, behaving is a manna,. inconsistent with acceptable deportment norms and leaving his assignment on two occasions withou permission. Claimant was found guilty of Carrier's General Rules G, R, N and 0 respectively and was suspended from service for twenty (20) days effective July 20, 1978. This disposition was contested pursuant to Agreement Rule and is non before this Board fox. app-~.late consideration. In defense of his position Claimant contends that, at most, the investigative trial transcript only shows that he was loud and acting in an uncommon manner He denies being under the influence of alcoholic beverage or acting is a manger that was palpably threatening to his foreman or fellcw workers. Re disputes the patrolman's testimony .that he left the property on two occasions and contests the interpretative validity of th


In our review of this case we concur with Claimant that the evidence doesn't categorically demonstrate that he was under alcoholic influence. Admittedly, his obstreperous deportment when coupled with his alcoholic history would indicate that he ingested liquor but more proof is needed. The employes who were with him that night did not smell alcohol or testify forthrightful7y that he was intoxicated, although they all uniformly noted his loud and disquieting behavior. The laboratory report, which delineated the findings of the blood and urine specimens, obtained at 9:00 P.M. on July 19, 1978, does not show that he was intoxicated, at least by reference to the key medical and physiological indicators, of intoxication. Accordingly, given the n=istakable readings of the salient clinical indices, we would be remiss if we concluded
 -authoritatively that he was intoxicated. Of course, we can postulate a presumption, but that is insufficient proof by our rigorous standards. In Third Division Award 16343, involving intoxicant usage, we held in pertinent part:

          "The burden of proving the Claimant was guilty as charged rested with the Carrier. To meet the burden the transcript of hearing must contain substantial material and relevant evidence of probative value supporting Carrier's findings."


We believe this holding is applicable to the assertion herein that he violated Rule G "Being under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics while on duty" and thus we are compelled to dismiss this charge.

 On the other hand, careful. analysis of the investigative transcript shows that he acted in a belligerent and improper manner via his foreman and fellow workers and that his continuous use of profanity created an apprehensive work environment foreman, particularly his statement, "Gc damit, I ain't talking to you. I am talking to this man" in the context of its expression certainly cannot be construed as routine him guilty of violating General Rules K and N and such conduct cannot be countenanced.

 In assessing the merits of the fourth charge that he left the property on two occasions without permission, we find that its difficult to determine precisely whether he left that many times. He contends that he left only once, while patrolman Dyer testified that he saw him
 leave at approximately 4:10 P.M and 4:30 P.M. on July 19, 1978. It may
                  Award Number 23052

                  Docket Number CL-22920 Page 3


well be that he left twice but that is not really ger.~re~
                                          If he left

once without permission what would be unacceptable sad thus a violation of
 ~ner'a1 Rule 0. But the record appears to show that it is not unusual for
 employes on the 4:00 P.M, to 12:00 midnight shift to move their cars closer
 to the work untul or the south end of the yard. Be of this practice,
 we would be unduly harsh if we sustained Be determifetion on this
 post, Particula.r7y., where as here there are conflicting statements as to
 how many times he left the property. He is cautioned that he must observe
 to the letter General Rule 0.

 Upon the record, we have poi substantial evidence to support the charges that he violated General Rules K and Ns but not General Rules G and 0 and we will modify the disciplinary penalty to comport with these findings. We agree that Ghrrier's twenty (20) day suspension was sot unreasonable when the intoxication specification is considered, but we do not think it would obIectnvely serve the purposes of progressive discipline if we sustained it in will respond positively to a penalty that is corrective in nature. We with reduce
 will the twenty (20) days suspension to five (5) days in accordance
 Judicial observation and admonish Claimant that we will not look

 kindly upon any recedjvist behavior .-that The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the
        and all the evidences finds and holds;


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Fh<ployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor

 Act, as approved Tune 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has Jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W-


        Claim sustained to the extent expressed here.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD AWM24MT BOARD

                          BY Order of Third Division


ATTEST:

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.