Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29260
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28208
 92-3-87-3-792
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein 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 violated the Agreement when it allowed junior furloughed employe M. Moss instead Gang 5X11 beginning during February 1986 (System File JP-86-24/12-8(86-241) Q·

 (2) Mr. J. Patrick shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered as a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above beginning sixty (60) days retroactive from May 5, 1986 and continuing until such time as the violation was corrected."

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

 The carrier or zarriers 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 holds seniority as a Trackman on the Raleigh-Rocky Mountain Division Seniority District. At the time this dispute arose, Claimant had approximately four years, four months service in the Maintenance of Way Department.

 During the latter part of 1985, Claimant's position was abolished due to force reduction. Rule 13, Section 3 requires an employee affected by a force reduction to exercise his seniority rights within 30 calendar days from the date of his displacement. The Rule reads as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 29260
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28208
 92-3-87-3-792
 "An employee affected by force reduction or dis
 placement shall, within a period of thirty (30)
 calendar days from the date of his displacement,
 exercise his seniority rights. An employee failing
 to comply with the above will forfeit his rights to
 place himself in any rank in which he holds senior
 ity; except by successfully bidding on and being
 assigned to a new position or vacancy, or by resuming
 active service through recall to duty in accordance
 with the provisions of Section 6 of this Rule."

 Claimant elected to protect his seniority in accordance with Rule 13, Section 6(a), which reads in pertinent part:

Beginning the latter half of February 1986, a temporary vacancy on a Trackman position occurred on System Rail Gang 5X11. The claim by the Organization is that Carrier r fill the temporary vacancy. According to the Organization, Rule 13, Section 5 and Rule 8, Section 3 are controlling. They state:


          Section 5


          Employees temporarily out of the service, or serving in lower ranks, will be given opportunity to return to the service, or to such higher rank in the service in which they have established seniority, in the order of their seniority to fill temporary vacancies or positions, as provided in Rule 8."


..RULE 8

BULLETINING VACANCIES AND NEW POSITIONS


                      ,t * ,t


          Section 3


          All temporary vacancies of more than seven (7) calendar days' and less than thirty-one (31) calendar days' duration will be filled as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 29260
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28208
 92-3-87-3-792
 First, by using the senior employee of the rank
 and group on the district who has seniority in the
 rank in which the vacancy occurs, who may be out of
 work or working in a lower rank account reduction of
 forces.
 Second, if no such employee is available, the
 vacancy will be filled through the general promotion
 rules."

 There is a dispute in fact as to whether the temporary Trackman vacancy in question on System Ra duration, thereby triggering the foregoing provisions of Rule 8, Section 3. The Organization contends that Carrier assigned a junior Trackman to a temporary Trackman vacancy on beginning the latter half of February 1986. Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that the junior Trac crew that works throughout the Southern States region, and that he was utilized only where vacancies there were regularly assigned employees off due to illness, personal reasons, etc. Carrier's position is that it is not required by any Agreement provision to fill these short term vacancies with furloughed employees, and that had the Claimant made himself available in the same manner as the junior employee, he would have been given preference in the filling of said vacancies.

 Even if the Board could resolve the factual dispute concerning the question of whether there was a "temporary vacancy" as set forth in Rule 8, Section 3, there is a threshold issue which is determinative of the matter now before us. As we view the record, it is clear that the claim is untimely, and therefore not subject tD adjudication on the merits. Claim was filed by letter dated May 5, 1986, and is based on an occurrence which the Organization acknowledges took place some therefore outside the 6u-day time frame set forth by Rule 40 of the Agreement. Although the Organization has attempted to characterize this dispute as a continuing violation, it does not meet the definitional standard established in longstanding Board precedent such as Third Division Award 14450 which held:

          ... the essential distinction between a continuing claim and a non-continuing claim is whether the alleged violation in dispute is repeated on more than one occasion or is a separate and definitive action which occurs on a particular date ...."

Form 1 Award No. 29260
 Page 4 Docket No. PtW-28208
 92-3-87-3-792
 Here, the "separate and definitive action" occurred when the junior
 employee was assigned to return to service on Rail Gang 5X11 in February 1986.
 We concur with Carrier's contention that while the claim as stated may have
 had potential continuing liability, it is one which has as its basis an
 alleged violation which occurred on a particular date, that is, the date on
 which the junior employee was first used on Rail Gang 5X11.

 Moreover, we reject as unpersuasive the Organization's assertion that the Carrier waived its timeliness objection. The record discloses that Carrier's Director of Labor R letter dated January 19, 1987, declining the Organization's appeal of the claim. Obviously, while it would have been preferable if the question had been raised during an earlier stage in the process, we decline to find that such action is tantamount to a wavier. Board precedent teaches that the issue of non-compliance with procedural requirements can be raised at any time during the handling of the claim on the property. (Second Division Award 8399). Having raised the issue on the property, we concur with Carrier that the claim is untimely and is therefore barred.

                        A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy ever.- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of June 1992.