Form 1 ';ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29354
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29669
 92-3-91-3-25
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: !Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company



(a) Carrier violated the parties Working Agreement as amended, particularly Discipline Rule 76, was removed and dismissed from service as a result of an investigation held November 17, 1989.

 (b) As a consequence of such action, Carrier be required to make Jerald D. Dawson, -D No. 82642, whole for all wages and benefits lost including but not limited to n would have earned had Carrier not taken such action; premiums for all employee and dependent group medical and life insurance; and clear Claimant's service record of all reference to such charges, including all seniority, vacation and
 holiday rights unimpaired." G. C. File 89-29-EJE. Carrier file RS-4-89. BRS
 Case No. 8114-EJE.
 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.
Form 1 Award No. 29354
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29669
 92-3-91-3-25
 Claimant entered Carrier's service on June 2, 1977, as a Signal Help
 er. On October 24 and 25, 1989, he was regularly assigned and qualified as a
 Signal Maintainer at West Chicago, Illinois, when a Federal Railroad Adminis
 tration Inspector discovered numerous defects in the equipment which Claimant
 was charged with maintaining in proper working order. As a result of these
 discovered defects, Claimant was notified, in writing, on November 3, 1989, to
 appear for an investigatory Hearing scheduled to be held on November 9, 1989.
 The Hearing was postponed by mutual consent and held on November 17, 1989.
 Claimant was present at the Hearing, he was ably represented, and he testified
 on his own behalf.

 Subsequently, by letter dated November 22, 1989, Claimant was notified that he was found guilty of t service. The November 22, 1989 letter of dismissal contained the following statement:

The dismissal was appealed through the appropriate appeals procedures and was ultimately denied by Carrier's highest appeals officer on April 3, 1990.

 At the outset, Carrier has challenged the timeliness of the Organization's appeal to this Board. The file with this Board was dated January 7, 1991. That date, Carrier says, was beyond the "9 montis from the date of said officer's [highest appeals officer] decision."

 Our review of the record in this case supports the contention of the Carrier. The precedent is clearly established that when a Claim is not progressed to this Board with alternative but to dismiss the Claim. See Third Division Award 25130 and Awards cited therein.

 However, having said that, if we had been able to reach the merits of this case, we would have concluded that there was substantial evidence in this record to support the action as taken.

 The Organization's argument that Claimant's prior record was referenced for the first time before th never challenged throughout the on-property handling of the appeals. It was, therefore, entirely proper for the Carrier to consider this extensive prior discipline record when determining the degree of discipline to assess in this instance. The sum total of the proven derelictions in the instant case and the less than exemplary prior discipline record negates any argument that the imposition of discipline of dismissal was excessive or capricious.
 Form 1 Award No. 29354
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-29669
 92-3-91-3-25




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        .ancy J. - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Ii:_nois, this 25th day of August 1992.