(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company (WP)

On behalf of L. Middleton for reinstatement with pay for all time lost commencing April 2, 1985, and his record cleared of any disciplinary action which resulted in his dismissal on May 8, 1985. Carrier file: 013-220-WP-M."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein,
 Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Signalman at
 Stockton, California.

 The record shows that on February 14, 1985, Claimant requested a 120day leave of absence. No rea Claimant was notified by a Carrier official that the requested leave of absence was not approved, ba Claimant requested and was permitted to take vacation February 25 to March 15, 1985. Claimant did not report for work following his vacation period. He reported for duty on April 19, 1985, at which time he was notified of his suspension from service pe


The Hearing was conducted as scheduled, and a copy of the Transcript has been made a part of the record. We consider the Hearing on April 29, 1985, as timely and within the limits of Rule 68 as it was within ten days of the last day involved in the Notice of Apri1,22, 1985.

 Rules 711 and 712 of Carrier's Maintenance of Way and Signal Rules read:

                      Docket Number SG-27202


          They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties with others, substitute others in their places, nor engage in other business which may interfere with the full discharge of their duty to the Company without proper authority.


          712. Employes subject to call for their tour of duty must not absent themselves from their usual calling place without notice of those required to c them.


          All employees must promptly give written and telephone notice of change in residence and/or tele number to proper authority."


In the Hearing it was developed that Claimant had been arrested by Civil authorities for "Driving Under the Influence" and, as a result, had been sentenced to serve time in a correctional facility and did serve a total of 51 days. The Carrier contends that Claimant was absent without leave commencing March 18, 1985. On May 8, 1985, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 It is clear from the record that Claimant's absence during the period involved in the Notice of Charge was due to his incarceration. This Board has held in numerous Awards that incarceration is not a valid reason for failing to protect an assignment. (Third Division Awards Nos. 24760, 24606, 22683, Second Division Award No. 8453, among others). We will adhere to that principle herein.

 The Board also finds that under Agreement Rule No. 64, an employe does not have an absolute right to a leave of absence simply on request. The Rule specifies "When requirements of the service permit..." Claimant's request for leave of absence comtemplated in the next six months by the Signal Department, and lack of experienced signal personn denied, it was his responsibility to return to work, and he could properly be considered absent without leave commencing March 18, 1985.

 Whether Claimant should be permitted to participate in the Employee Assistance Program must be left to the parties involved. (Third Division Award No. 25553, Second Division Award No. 11188).

 We also note from the record that Claimant's prior disciplinary record was far from satisfactory considered in arriving at the discipline to be imposed for a proven offense.

 There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier.<
                      Award Number 26334 Page 3

                      Docket Number SG-27202


        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;


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 W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J

              rr - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 8th day of June 1987.