(Arthur M. Di Stefano PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEVENT OF CLAIM: "On or about June 7, 1978 I was dismissed by the
 Consolidated Rail Corporation for the following reasons; failure to report for duty on two tours on two certain days; my rebuttal is that I did call in on these two certain days and report I would not be at the assignment for different types of problems fulfills my responsibility, failure to be relieved on a certain day tmenty minutes before completion of tour; my rebuttal is that I informed the man on duty of a need to submit a manual report to the Operation control facility at the thirtieth Street Station because of Computer Systems problems." (etc.)

 OPT1iION OF BOARD: Claimant entered the service of the Carrier as a telegrapher
 on June 14, 1968 and at the time of the incident involved in his dismissal, April 29, 1978, he was employed as a Wire Chief in the "PC" office located in Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Claimant was charged, granted a hearing and found guilty of sleeping on duty. His employment record was revie of discipline of dismissal. A claim was appealed on the property and denied' on August 21, 1978 by the Senior Director, Labor Relations. Thereafter, on April 27, 1979, Petitioner filed a claim with.the Tk:ir3 Division. Fie "cancelled" this claim on the following day and a new claim was filed on May 23, 1979 Under date of November 26, 1979, the Petitioner requested cancellation of this Second claim and we issued our Award 22656, dismissing the matter.

 On September 22, 1982, the Petitioner filed another dispute, the one we have before us now, with the Third Division dealing with his dismissal fro. the Carrier "on or about June 7, 1978" for an alleged "failure to report for duty on two tours on two certain days."

 The Carrier contends initially that Petitioner's claim is substantially different from the claim also raises other procedural arguments which they contend prohibit our consideration of the claim on
Our review of this complicated and disoriented handling establishes that Claimant's petition is procedurally defective for several reasons, including his failure to com submitting his claim to this tribunal; his attempt to refile and relitigate a final and binding decision; and his failure to handle the present claim in the usual manner on the property. For all of these reasons, the claim must be dismissed.
 Award Nudber 241+39
 Docket Number MS-24935

 FMINGS: The Th?wd Division. of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon., and
 upon the xhole record and all the evidence.. finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Fhzployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and.Ekployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act; as ap~oved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute i.avolveed herein; and

 page 2

 That the claim is barred.

 03 aim dismissed.

 A W . A R D
RATIONAL RAMR34D AATMWRT BOARD
 By Order of.Thitrd Division

 ATMST: Acting Executive Secretary

By ~:_. ~__._ _____ - ,_ __
 /'; Rosemarie Brascii - A^mintstrative Assistant

 Dated at Cal csgo.. Illiaoisy this 15th day of Jute 1983.