Edwin H. Benn, Referee


              (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
              Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated

              Rail Corporation (Conrail):


On behalf of Signalman H. E. Black who was dismissed from service effective November 2, 1984, for alleged conduct on October 12, 1984. Carrier file: SD-2176-D."

              OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Signalman for 29 years.


On the way to work on October 12, 1984, Claimant purchased a 25 caliber handgun from an individu would have to register the gun and was planning to do so at the end of his tour of duty that day. While at the worksite, but before his scheduled starting time, Claimant showe was found in the gun. Further search disclosed fifteen more rounds of ammunition. Claimant was then arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon (a felony). The record does not reveal the ultimate disposition of the criminal charge.

 After Hearing, by Notice dated November 2, 1984, Claimant was dismissed from service. Aside from shows no prior disciplinary matters.

 As stated in Third Division Award 21323, in upholding the discharge of an employee with 39 years of service:

          "On many occasions this Board has held that years of service alone does not mitigate improper conduct by employes and this case is no exception. While we are reluctant to sustain the ultimate penalty of dismissal 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 imposition of discipline and under the circumstances herein we are not inclined to substitute our judgment for that of Carrier."

                        Award Number 26250 Page 2

                        Docket Number SG-26833


With respect to the possession of firearms on a Carrier's property, we said in Third Division Award 25016:

          "A number of awards upholding the dismissal of employes for being in the possession of firearms, while on Company property, have been issued by this Division. We find that in the instant case, there is no proper basis to interfere with the discipline assessed by the Carrier and the claim is denied."


We believe that the reasoning in the above awards guides us in this case. Our function is to review the record to determine if substantial evidence exists to support the charge against Claimant. Third Division Award 21020. If such substantial evidence exists, then we cannot disturb the Carrier's penalty unless it a unjust, unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Fourth Division Award 3490. There is no dispute concerning the facts in this matter. Claimant was in possession of a loaded firearm on the Carrier's property and exhibited that loaded gun to other employees. The Carrier discharged Claimant for the same. Clearly, substantial evidence exists to support the Carrier's charge. We cannot conclude on the basis of those facts that the Carrier's assessment of discharge as discipline was excessive, unjust, arbitrar noted above, this Board has upheld discharges for similar misconduct. No mitigating circumstances exist in this matter to require a different result.

 It is regrettable that an employee of such long service must be discharged. However, the fact re first, was of grave seriousness and could have seriously endangered other employees. Claimant's length of service alone, under the circumstances of this case, cannot negate or mitigate his misconduct. Claimant must be presumed to have foreseen the function, we are compelled to uphold the Carrier's decision to discharge Claimant.

 In light of our conclusion that the discipline imposed was supported by the record, it is therefore unnecessary to address the leniency issue raised by the parties.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;

                        Award Number 26250 Page 3

                        Docket Number SG-26833


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 Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A WAR D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:

      Nancy J.'Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of March 1987.