Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27945
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27948
 89-3-87-3-616
 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:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother-
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Seaboard System Company (former Seaboard Coast Line):

 On behalf of J. E. Williams, for reinstatement to service with all lost time and benefits restored beginning September 9, 1986, and continuing until this dispute is settled, account of Carrier violated the current Signalman's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Rule 47 when it failed to give him a fair and impartial hearing and assessed excessive discipline. Carrier file 15-1 (86-51)."

 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.

The Claimant, a Signal Inspector, was charged with violating Carrier's Operating Rules G-1 and L, (D possessed certain identified Carrier property on his premises at Franklinton, North Carolina. He was notified to attend a formal investigation, which was held on September 3, 1986, as scheduled, and then notified on September 19, 1986, that based on the evidence presented, he was dismissed from the service. During the progression of the claim on the property, the Carrier asserted an alleged procedural violation, but subsequently it was agreed to handle the case on its merits.
 Form 1 Award No. 27945
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27948
 89-3-87-3-616

 This is one of those cases where there is no serious conflict concerning the testimony or the ev belonged to the Carrier, but was found in Claimant's possession without adequate or credible explana take the property with the willful intent of keeping it permanently, or was it as the Claimant so ingeniously describes it "merely a temporary use of Carrier's surplus property." The Claimant states he was just using the property but fully intended t the record does not indicate whether Claimant would have carried out those good intentions.

 The Board has stated on numerous occasions that dishonesty, where proven, is a dismissable offense.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: /00
 e Executive Secretary

                Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June 1989.