1. That the Carrier's decision to remove Vfestern Region, L. L_ Sanchez from service was unjust.

2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Sanchez with seniority, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss as a result of Investigation held 9 00 a.m on May 22, 1996 continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole, because the Carrier did riot introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decision, removal from service is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.

3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule 13 and Appendix 11 because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved the Caaimant violated the riles enumerated in their decision.

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier

Claimant timely requested the Investigation, during which Claimant readily admitted that he was absent «ithout authority He also stated he knew he should have called somebody, but lie didn't

Claimant has not worked since February 7, 1996. The termination notice was written February 20, 1996. Claimant's reasons for being off possibly would have sufficed for a leave of absence or at least some time off with permission, but he failed to communicate with anyone in authority He just let it slide

Claimant has been with the Carrier since 1931, and he had one disciplinary hearing for being absent without authority for which he had been assessed a deferred suspension, so this Board is of the opinion that Claimant knew better than just to walk away from his job without telling someone

QBDF