PARTIES 'Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation company (Western Lines)
 STATEMENT "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the agreement
 OF CLAIM when-on July 6, 1982, it suspended Track Laborer R. E.
 Constante from service pending formal hearing for alleged
 violation of Carrier Rule 'G', and subsequently advised Mr.
 Constante in letter uui.ed July 28, 1982, that he was in fact
 in violation of said rule and, for reasons thereof, he was
 thereby dismissed from the service of the-Carrier, said
 action being excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of discre
 tion.
 2. That R. E. Constante now be reinstated to his rightful posi
 tion with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired,
 compensated for all time lost therefrom, and that the charges
 placed on his personal record be expunged therefrom."
 FINDINGS

 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labur Act, as amenoed, . and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-·156 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Claimant herein had eleven years service with Carrier at the time that he was discharged. On July 6, 1982, claimant was observed by his Foreman having some difficulty in following instructions and maneuvering his truck on the labor gang he was assigned to. Further, the Foreman saw claimant throw a can of beer out of the truck into the bushes. He retrieved the can which was still cool. Subsequently, claimant was taken to the hospital for blood tests and the results of the blood tests indicated that his blood content contained .19"1 volume of alcohol, .1-' alcohol is conclusive in the State of Arizona that a person is under the influence of alcohol. Claimdnt was removed from service pending a formal hearing. Following a formal hearing, claimant was dismissed from service by letter dated July 26, 1Q82.

 Carrier notes that claini..int was not only guilty of the chdt(,e:. neruin, but this was not the first time that he was guilty of the same infraction. I n Awdt-d :lo. 15
 PLB - 2439 - 2 - AWD I#67

 of this Board, dated July 21, 1980, claimant was reinstated to service after-having - been dismissed for violation of Rule G. During that case and still another infraction which claimant was guilty of, it was evident that he had a problem with alcohol. He entered a,rehabilitation program and upon completion of that program was permittedto return to service on a leniency basis in accordance with a plan worked out by both parties. Carrier notes that this is the fourth time the claimant has been dismissed from Carrier's service. Based on the entire record, the obvious infraction in this dispute, Carrier concluded that it had no choice but to discharge claimant.

 Petitioner states that prior to the morning of July 6, 1982, during a holiday weekend, claimant had been on a holiday and had been drinking. He arrived to work that morn- - ing after having a long journey without adequate rest but with just a hangover, according to Petitioner. Specifically, claimant denied consuminn beer during working hours on July 6 or having beer in his possession while on Company property. The Organization takes the position that if there is any doubt with respect to claimant's - actions in a case such as this, Carrier should not take the ultimate action of dismissal, particularly with a veteran employee. in this dispute the Organization argues that he should not have been dismissed but should have been returned to service since this was an excessive and unreasonuble penalty on the part of Carrier.

 From the entire record it is quite apparent that claimant, regardless of the genesis of the incident, was under the influence of alcohol on the morning of July 6. The test at the hospital was merely confirmation of what had been observed by Carrier officials. Furthermore, the credibility issue of wholher, indeed, he was drinking on the job was resolved by the hearing officer in favor of Carrier's supervisor who saw him throw the can of beer out of the cab of the truck. Thus, there .is sufficient and substantial evidence in support of Carrier's conclusion that
 claimant was in violation of Rule G on the mornin~tj in question. In view of clam- -
 ant's prior record and the seriousness of the transgression, the Board has no alter
 native but to agree with Carrier that dismissal was the appropriate remedy. The
 claim must be denied.

 AWARD
            Claim denied.

PLB - 2439 - 3 - AWD I#67

                    I. M. Lieberian, Neutral-Chairman


L. C. Scherling, Carr ' r Member Cfoose> Fm~loyce ~teuibeF

 San Francisco, CA
 March 27, 1984.