Further, the record discloses that Claimant testified that at approximately 2:00 AM on January 3, 1980, he allegedly became sick while in bed on the camp cars. Claimant asserted that he woke up a fellaa employee by the name of Presley, and further advised that he doubted whether the Presley boy would remember his having awoken him. Claimant advisers that he did not attempt to contact Mr. Marcum before going hue, that he knew that Marcum. was aboard the camp cars.

Cl aillant alleged that he did not want to disturb ~larcum at 2:30 in the morning, rather, he waited until. he got home and his wife drove some five miles the following morning to attempt to contact the company to advise them of Claimant's alleged illness. Claimant testified that he did not go to a doctor until the following Monday, and, whereupon his doctor is alleged to have advised him that he was suffering from an attack of ulcers. No medical certification was offered to support Claimant's contention.

Supervisor Farsul Marcum testified that Claimant cane to him to seek permission to be off the Thursday and Friday before the weekend he was scheduled to begin his vacation. Foreman Marcum, had been requested by Claimant to begin his vacation on that Thursday. Marcuun spoke to Supervisor Shaver advising of Claimant's request to begin the vacation the following morning. Shaver advised Marcuzn that the amount of time for notice was too short, that Claimant could begin his vacation on the following Monday. That information appears in the transcript to have

Nevertheless, Claimant contended he became ill at 2:00 AM, left t': work site without permission, and failed .and/or neglected to contact ; supervisor until the following morning.

Organization advances the claim on the basis that Claimant was no: afforded a fair and impartial hearing, that Claimant's prior service record was adverselv and unfairly used against him.

Claimant's prior service record discloses that on October 1, 197: Claimant received a letter relative to his absence for work advising h-.-. that said occurrence would not be tolerated by Carrier.

Under date of October 11, 1976 Claimant received a thirty da·: suspension (deferred) for excessive absenteeism.

On March 6, 1979 Claimant again received an admonition for his absences, and, on March 20, 1979 Claimant was assessed another thir~--(30) day, (deferred) suspension for excessive absenteeism.

Under date of March 23, 1979 Claimant was given a thirty day actua=. suspension for excessive absenteeism.

The record also discloses that Claimant's supervisors testified tc having counselled Claimant repeatedly on different occasions concerning his failure to protect his work assignment.

The Board finds that the record fails to reflect any evidence o_° prejudice by the inclusion of Claimant's past service record ir. assessing discipline. There is ample, credible testimony which Carrier chose to accept concerning the circumstances under which Claimant chose to leave Carrier's property without permission. Claimant's version of

Carrier, as the trier of the facts, chose to believe its witnesses and to draw such negative inferences as were permissible in those circumstances against Claimant's version of the events. We can find no abuse of Carrier's discretion therein.

Claimant has had ample opportunity in the past to correct his unacceptable work performance. Carrier has repeatedly afforded Claimant, by letter and by oral counselling with his supervisors; the opportunity to provide meaningful, reliable service to his company. Claimant chose to ignore those opportunities. on the record before us we can find no mitigating circumstances that could warrant intrusion by the Board into the results. If Carrier chooses to consider. Claimant for restoration to service on a leniency basis, that is wholly a matter between Carrier and organization and not a proper function of the Board. ANARD: Claim denied.

A. s Van Wart,