Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28876
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29195
 91-3-90-3-62
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Pamela Jones PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Whether the Carrier violated the BRAC/NRPC Agreement of July 21, 1972, as revised 6/27/74, in particular Rules 21, 24 and others when it arbitrarily and discriminately terminated Pamela Jones who was on medical leave, without imparting her a fair and impartial trial.

 On Monday 2/29/88, Pamela Jones, seniority date 8/18/86, attempted to return off of her medical leave and arrange a return to work physical at Fort Washington. Ms. Jones was informed by D. Stewart of the carrier that her employment was terminated. Pamela Jones was on a legitimate medical leave and was under a doctor's care. She was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing, nor did she receive a letter of Notice of Investigation.

 Pamela Jones claims immediate restoration of employment and compensation of one day's pay at the continuing each working day thereafter until she is restored to service."

 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.

Claimant entered Carrier's service on August 18, 1986. She was employed as a Reservation Sales Agent at Carrier's Mid-Atlantic Reservation Sales office in Fort Washington, PA, when, on August 11, 1987, she requested a medical leave. By letter dated August 12, 1987, Claimant's request for medical leave was granted wit relative to the diagnosis and prognosis of her illness was required by the 5th consecutive calendar day of confinement. She was further reminded that "medical certification is to be renewed every 30 calendar days until you are released by your physician to return to FULL DUTY."
 Form 1 Award No. 28876
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29195
 91-3-90-3-62

 Subsequently, and because nothing had been heard from Claimant or her physician, a second communication was sent to Claimant on September 22, 1987, informing her that an appointment had been made for her to be seen by an Amtrak physician on October 1, 1987, to substantiate her medical leave of absence. This piece of certified mail was returned to the Carrier marked "unclaimed."

 on October 5, 1987, a third communication was sent to Claimant reminding her that she had failed to comply with Carrier's medical leave policy by failing to furnish medical documentation and that she had placed herself in an A.W.O.L. status as of August 15, 1987. She was instructed to furnish such medical documentation within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of that letter in order to substantiate her continued absence. This piece of certified mail was also returned to the Carrier marked "unclaimed."

 Under date of October 26, 1987, a fourth communication was sent informing Claimant that in accordance with the provisions ^° Rule 21(c) of the Agreement, she had forfeite&her seniority. A copy of this letter was sent to the Organization. Claimant received and signed for the October 26, 1987 letter. Still nothing was heard from Claimant.

 The next communication of record is a "To Whom It May Concern" memo dated November 9., 1987, received by Carrier November 16, 1987, from a physician advising that Claim was scheduled for further examination on November 10, 1987. There is nothing to be found in the on-property record to indicate that Claimant made any attempt to make any contact with the Carrier. It was not until February 29, 1988, that Claimant contacted Carrier via telephone indicating that she wished to return to service. She was again informed that she had forfeited her seniority in accordance with had been so notified on October 26, 1987. Subsequently, a claim on her behalf was initiated and progressed through the usual on-property grievance handling procedures. Failing to reach a satisfactory resolution of the claim during the on-property handling, it has come to this Board for final adjudication.

 It must first be pointed out that this Board is an appellate review Board. Our considerations are limited to those issues, arguments and items of evidence which were developed, advanced or presented during the on-property handling of the claim. We may not consider issues, arguments or evidence which are raised or presented for the first time before this Board. Our determination is based solel during their on-property handling.
The Agreement provisions which were cited in this dispute are Rule 21 - Leave of Absence and Rule 24 - Discipline-Investigation-Appeal. Rule 21, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 28876
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-29195
 91-3-90-3-62
 "(c) An employee who fails to report for duty at the
 expiration of leave of absence shall forfeit
 his seniority rights and be considered out of
 service unless the employee presents sufficient
 proof that circumstances beyond his control
 prevented such return. In such case, the leave
 will be extended to include the delay."

 Rule 24, in pertinent part, reads as follows:

It is Claimant's contention that Rule 21(c) is not a self-executing Rule; that Rule 24 was violated because no investigation was accorded; that the discipline was excessive; and, that she had no reason to believe that Carrier had discharged her until February 29, 1988.

 Carrier argues that Rule 21(c) is a self-executing Rule; that Rule 24 has no application in this case; and that Claimant failed to provide evidence to justify her cont
This Board has carefully reviewed and diligently considered the entire record in this case and finds that all of the due process rights to which Claimant is entitled under the provisions of the negotiated Agreement have been granted. This is not a discipline case. Rule 24 has no application to situations of this type. Boards of Adjustment created under Section 3, First and Second of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, have so ruled on numerous occasions. The foll point and is cited in support of our decision in this case. There it was ruled:
Form 1 Award No. 28876
 Page 4 Docket No. MS-29195
 91-3-90-3-62
 Claimant did not communicate with Carrier for some
 38 days after he was placed on leave starting June 14
 nor did he furnish Carrier with a doctor's statement
 as requested. We must admit to some puzzlement as to
 why Claimant did not comply with Carrier's request.
 The point is, he did not, and the self-executing
 provision of Rule 21-C was triggered. We must
 conclude, therefore, that Claimant absented himself
 from his assignment beyond the period of his
 authorized leave and thereby terminated his employ
 ment relationship."

 We also cite in support of this principle Third Division Award 22837, Award 7 of Public Law Board 4267 and Award 99 of Public Law Board 3783.

 Claimant's argument that she had no reason to believe that Carrier had discharged her until February 29, 1988 is incredible '- light of her receipt of Carrier's October 26; 1987, communication and the clearly stated contents thereof. She had an obligation to provide bona fide evidence of her inability to comply with the requirements attendant to her medical leave of absence. There is nothing in this record to show that she met that obligation. Rule 21(c) was proper





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest (
 :
        ancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1991.