Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28484
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28972
 90-3-89-3-391
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Mr. L. K. Stojanik for alleged violation of Rules 607 and 609 of the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company and Rule 613 of the 'Safety, Radio and General Rules for All Employes' was unwarranted, unjust, and in violation
(2) The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered and he shall be reimbursed for any medical expenses incurred by himself or his dependents which would have
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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 This is indeed an unfortunate case. Here we have an individual who had almost 10 years of service and seniority with the Carrier and who knew what the Company's rules were relative to CONDUCT (Rule 607), CARE OF PROPERTY (Rule 609), and CREDIT OR PROPERTY (Rule 613). At the formal hearing, when asked:


Form 1 Award No. 28484
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28972
 90-3-89-3-391

 And yet, this 10-year employee elected to come on the Carrier's property at a time and on a day when he was not scheduled to be on the Carrier's property and, witho representative, removed - for his own use - material which belonged to the Carrier. He admitted this to the Assistant Roadmaster. He admitted this to the local police. He admitted this at the on-property hearing.

 He now asks this Board to forgive and forget. He says that others have done such things in the past and Management has turned its head. However, he does not offer one
This Board has studied the entire record which has been presented and has considered all of the arguments which have been advanced by the parties.

 Where, as here, there is an admission of guilt, there is no need for further proof. Where, as here, there is no mitigation of the admitted guilt, this Board is without power to reverse the discipline as assessed by the Carrier. The precedent in t 25164 are but a few of the plethora of Awards on this subject. There is no basis in this case to find that Claimant had any right to believe that he could come on to the Carrier's property on his off-day and remove without anyone's authority the Car discipline as assessed is warranted. The claim for reinstatement is denied.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      -~

      'Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of August 1990.