Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD-ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27839
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27958
 89-3-87-3-620
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee W. F. Euker when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former SCL)

On behalf of A. E. Bullock, II, I. D. No. 177543, for reinstatement to service with all pay and benefits restored beginning September 12, 1986 account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Rule 47, when it failed to properly appraise him and to prove charges against him during the investigation of August 27, 1986, at West Palm Beach, Florida, and also assessed him with excessive discipline. Carrier file 15-47 (86-48)"

 FINDINGS:

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

This is a discipline case dealing with an Assistant Signalmen who was charged with insubordination for failure to comply with an Assistant Signal Supervisor's instructions concerning a Carrier construction truck, plus damage done to said vehicle while in Claimant's custody. A formal Investigation was held on August 27, 1986, following which Claimant was dismissed from the service. The Claim that was was discussed at the highest level on December 16, 1986, it was agreed the Claim would be handled on the merits. For that reason our decision will not address the procedural arguments advanced by either side.
 Form 1 Award No. 27839
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27958
 89-3-87-3-620

 At issue in this dispute is the charge of "unreported damage" to a construction truck which allegedly occurred while assigned to and operated by Claimant, coupled with the charge of insubordination, when Claimant reputedly disregarded an order from his Supervisor not to drive the truck to his motel, a round-trip of approximately sixty miles.

 In reference to that portion of the charge relating to the truck damage, primarily the cable and testimony from a fellow employee, inculpating the Claimant as the person responsible for the damage operating rules. Whether the damage resulted from gross negligence or intentional behavior is not re
The larger question and the issue of greater significance is that pertaining to the Claimant's disobedience of a direct order not to drive the construction truck to the motel on the afternoon of May 29, 1986. The appropriateness of the order w that issue is germane, and it was amply justified.

 We searched the trial record carefully to determine if there could be any basis for the Claimant's argument that he did not fully understand or comprehend the order, or whether the order was given in such an ambiguous manner that a reasonable person would have misconstrued it. Our search was fruitless. Confronted as we are with such clear and unrefuted testimony proving guilt of the charges, combined with the Claimant's extremely poor discipline record, which shows a prior dismissal and a leniency reinstatement by Carrier, plus a later "last chance" warning, we have no alternative but to deny the Claim.




                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1989.