PARTIES The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE and
 The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT 1. Carriers decision to remove system steel
 OF CLAIM Gang Trackman C. Begaye from service, was
 unjust.
 2. Accordingly, the Carrier should now be re
 quired to reinstate claimant Begaye with
 seniority, vacation, all benefit rights
 unimpaired, and pay for all wage lost as
 a result of investigation held at 9:30 am,
 August 29, 1986, continuing forward and/
 or otherwise made whole, because the Car
 rier did not introduce substantial, cred
 itable evidence that proved the Claimant
 violated the rules enumerated in their de
 cision, and even if Claimant violated the
 rules enumerated in the decision, perman
 ent removal from service is extreme and
 harsh discipline under the circumstances.
 FINDINGS

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein are the Carrier and the Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated November 26, 1985, and has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
 i i yo.~l - 3V

Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Trackman on the system Steel Gang. He prevoiusly had held seniority as a Foreman, but lost that seniority, due to his failure to respond to a notice of recall. The Organization succeeded in recovering his seniority through the grievance procedure, and Claimant was notified to report to the office for a physical examination pursuant to the settlement of the grievance.


On August 15, 1986, Claimant reported to the office pursuant to the Notice, and the Carrier contends that he was under the influence of alcohol, and conducted himself in a belligerent manner. He was removed from the property by a Special Agent, and was arrested. Following an Investigation held on August 29, 1986, the Claimant was dismissed from the service.


The Organization contends that the Carrier did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove Claimant's guilt, and that the disci- - pline was excessive in view of the nature of the offense.


The record demonstrates conclusively that Claimant reported under
          the influence of alcohol; in fact, Claimant admitted that such was the case. The following from page 3 of the transcript is relevent:


                      Q. Had you been drinking intoxicants when you were on the property that day?


                  A. I supposedly.


Q. How much had you had to drink? I
                      A. I don't know. I was out. I was completely intoxicated. Nothing else I know. All I know is when I woke up in jail.

                  Q. You were taken to jail from company property?


                  A. Probably.


                        Q. Do you understand that Rule 6 prohibits drinking and being on Company property while you are employed by the Santa Fe?


                  A. Yes, I know.


            It is clear that Claimant was guilty of violating Rule 6 by his

            own admission. There was additional testimony to the fact by the

            Clerk and the Special agent, but it is unnecessary to cite it

            here in the face of Claimant's admission of guilt. With respect

            to the second charge: that Claimant conducted himself in a bel-

                                        ~o~-/- 35


                          -4-


ligerent and insubordinate manner whhile on the property, the following is his testimony:


        Q. You were also charged with Rule 16 which says

        you were belligerent and insubordinate. Do

        you recall your actions that would indicate

        you were in violation of that rule?

        A. I don't know.


In addition to testifying about the Claimant's intoxication, Clerk Yazzie and Special Agent Tomberlin gave positive evidence that Claimant was argumentative and belligerent, and that he refused to leave the property after being ordered to do so repeatedly. Claimant neither affirms or denies this evidence, but merely states that he doesn't know. Under these circumstances, the Board must accept the unrefuted testimony of the Carrier witnesses as fact. Therefore, Claimant was guilty of the second Charge.


Claimant acknowledged that he was notified of the time, date and place of the Investigation, but came and offered no defense. The Charges were of a serious nature, and countless Awards of Arbi-

410;).1 -3 s

 tration Boards have upheld discharge for such offenses. The Carrier discharged all of its contractural responsibilities, and proved its case. In view of the serious nature of the offense, we find that discharge was appropriate.

 We will deny the claim.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 C. F. oose, Employee Member

 L. L. Pope, Carrier Member

 J R. k6oKns n, Chairman an Ntt al member

 ._

 _:~..Z 1~ `987

 °'~=afio OYic~'/'`-'.

 Dated: ~2U 1 19 ?'7