Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29195
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29432
 92-3-90-3-353
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hugh G. Duffy when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Carrier's decision to disqualify and suspend Track Inspector/Rail Lubricator Mr. John R. '... failure to yield the right of way on June 10, 1989 ***', was arbitrary, capricious, based on unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File G.89-118).

 (2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof, the Claimant's track inspe shall be paid for all wage loss suffered."

 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 was charged with violating Rules 3193 and 3257 of Carrier's Safety Rules after being involved in a crossing accident on June 10, 1989 while operating a Hy-Rail vehicle. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered personal injuries and the Hy-Rail vehicle was destroyed. Subsequent to a Hearing, Claimant was found guilty as charged and assessed the penalty of a one-week suspension and disqualification as a Track Inspector/Rail Lubricator.
 Form 1 Award No. 29195
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29432
 92-3-90-3-353
 Claimant testified that he was patrolling his assigned territory on
 the date in question. As he approached the Maple Grove Road crossing near
 :4ilepost 19.2, he came to a complete stop, looked both East and West, and,
 observing no vehicular traffic, proceeded forward through the crossing. The
 next thing that he recalled was that his vehicle had been struck broadside by
 another vehicle and had been knocked off the rails and into the ditch.

 Claimant subsequently gave a statement to the St. Louis County Sheriff. However, neither this statement nor the police report were offered as evidence by the Carrier. There were no other eyewitnesses to the accident.

 It is well-established that the Carrier has the burden of proving by "substantial evidence" that Claimant is guilty of the charges. The Supreme Court has defined the term as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229).

 Here the Carrier has established only that a vehicle was destroyed and that Claimant suffered personal injuries. The mere fact that Claimant was involved in an accident does not mean that he is presumed to be at fault and subject to discipline. The Board thus concludes that the Carrier has failed to support its finding of guilt by substantive evidence and that such finding was therefore arbitrary. Accordingly, we will sustain the claim.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      4ncyy J. r -Executive Sec etary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.