Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29451
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29869
 92-3-91-3-276
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Vincent D. Crawford PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "(Statement) Unfair dismissal practices under the Carriers policy on drugs."

 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.

The basic facts of the instant case are not in dispute. In a letter dated February 12, 1985, Carrier notified all employees that all Company physicals would include a drug screen urinalysis and that Company policy forbade "the active employment of those who depend on or use drugs which impair sensory, mental or physical functions." By a letter dated August 1, 1985, the Company's February letter was modified to provide: 1) any employee who tests positive for a prohibited substance is required to submit a negative retest to a Carrier-designated facility within 45 days of the letter informing him of the positive test result; and 2) employees who has tested positive but then provided a negative sample, are required to undergo periodic retests for three years after their return to duty in order to monitor their compliance with Carrier Rules.

 On June 22, 1987, Carrier's Medical Director advised Claimant that a drug screen performed in conjunction with his recent physical examination was positive for marijuana. He also advised Claimant that he would have 45 days to provide a negative sample, or he could avail himself of the Carrier's Drug and Rehabilitation Services Program. Claimant elected to take the latter option. Following completion of the program, Claimant provided a negative sample and Carrier's Medical Director informed him he was eligible to return to work.
 Form 1 Award No. 29451
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29869
 92-3-91-3-276
 In a letter dated February 7, 1989, the Carrier's Medical Director
 notified Claimant of his responsibilities as follows:





On February 26, 1990, Claimant produced a urine sample for drug testing at the request of the Carrier's Medical Director. The sample was placed in a tamper evident bag and sent to the testing laboratory. On March 7, 1990, the Carrier's 4edicai Director's office advised the Track Supervisor that Claimant had tested positive for marijuana metabolites. The Track Supervisor cited Claimant to
A Hearing, was field 3n March 23, 1990. Following the Hearing, Claimant was notified by Letter of "arch 28, 1990, that he wa
At the Hearing, and subsequently in his comments at the Hearing held at his request by this Board, aaimant protested his innocence and denied that he had been using any prohibited substances. He attributed the positive result of his drug test to h he maintained that the reason for his positive test was "secondary" exposure incurred from being in the presence of others who were smoking marijuana.

 There is nothing on the record before us, however, to support Claimant's "alternattve theory" no basis for disturbing Carr-;~c's assessment of discipline.
 Form 1 Award No. 29451
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-29869
 92-3-91-3-276






Attest:
      'Nancy J. 7 Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of October 1992.