PARTIES Brotherhood of maintenance of way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 STATEMENT "(1) That the Carrier violated the terms of the
 OF CLAIM current Agreement when it dismissed welder
 M.R. McKenna, said action being unduly harsh
 and in abuse of discretion.
 (2) That the Carrier shall be required to reinstate
 Claimant with seniority and all other rights
 restored unimpaired, with compensation for
 all wage loss suffered."
 FINDINGS

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 The record indicates that Claimant had been employed by Carrier
 for approximately 11 years at the time of the incident herein. On
 December 12, 1984, he was convicted of operating a motor vehicle
 while under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to serve
 120 days in the County Jail. The sentence was to begin on February
 25, 1985. During the period from December 12 through February 25,

                    t~ 0


X43 c1 _ I o'i
                                                            _2_


        Claimant attempted to obtain a leave of absence to cover that period of time or to have his vacation rearranged to cover at least part of the period during which he was to be incarcerated. Carrier officials denied Claimant's requests.


        On March 1, 1985, Claimant was addressed a letter informing him that because of his unexcused absences, he was terminated. Following his incarceration on May 7, a hearing was held and thereafter Carrier indicated that no justification had been found to reverse the decision to terminate him.


        Petitioner argues that it would have been better for Carrier to have attempted to have Claimant participate in the Employees Assistance Program dealing with chemical dependence, rather than wait for him to be incarcerated and then fire him. Thus, Claimant, according to petitioner, should have been given an opportunity to rehabilitate himself and should not have been terminated. Carrier points out that it had no reason to do anything but reach the decision indicated and further, that after Claimant's incarceration, he was observed to have been in the vicinity of the Carrier's train station in an inebriated state; and furthermore, during the week of April 28th, he was sentenced to serve two years in the State Penitentiary for being under the influence of alcoholic beveragetand causing bodily injury to another person. The Carrier indicated that there was no recommendation from its Employees Assistance counsellors that he

had made any attempt to rehabilitate himself following his jail sentence in the County Jail.

 The record is clear that the absences which triggered the Claimant's dismissal were caused by his own actions resulting in incarceration. It has long been established that service in jail is not a valid reason for failure to protect an employee's assignment. This is particularly true under circumstances such as those involved herein. Further, Petitioner's position with respect to possible rehabilitation has no validity in a proceding such as this, since that approach deals with leniency. The record is clear that Claimant's absence was caused by his own malfesence, resulting in the jail sentence. He made no attempt to rehabilitate himself and there is no justification for the claim whatever. The claim must be denied.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 I.M.Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

 C.F.Foose, Employee 39ember

 San Francisco, California

 January ~-6 , 1987

 ar ier Member