PARTIES TO DISPUTE-
                  (The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former (ATSF Railway Company)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM :

      1. The Carrier allegedly violated the Agreement when investigation was

          held on April 9, 2003, and Mr. R. P. Avalos was dismissed from

          service for allegedly violating Rule 1.6, Part 4 of the Maintenance of

          Way Operating Rules In connection with alleged falsification of

          expense report for weekend travel and miles claimed that were

          never driven.


      2. As a consequence of the Carrier's violation referred to above Mr. '

          Avalos shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation, all rights

          unimpaired and pay for all wages lost commencing March 5, 2003

          continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole.


      3. That any mention of the charges relating to this incident shall be

removed from Mr. Avalos' personal record.
 FINDINGS
 Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

    See Case No. 235 for the facts leading to the Investigation.

Claimant contended that he did not receive a copy of the notice of charges until he arrived at the Investigation, but no objection was filed thereto.
 PCB ~O. S~
 Page 2 Award No.

                                              Case No. 237


      The Organization alleged several instances of Carrier depriving Claimant a fair


and impartial Investigation, but those charges were the same set out in Case Nos. 235 &

 236.

      Despite the alleged miscue that was supposedly committed by the Carrier,


Claimant did readily admit he filed a false claim. Following is an excerpt from the

 Investigation transcript:

      "83. Q. Mr. Avalos, is this the travel allowance that you submitted for

              the time in question?

        A. Yes.


      E4. 4 And, Mr. Avalos, it says on here that on date of travel home

      was 21612003. And then it says date, return date was on

      21912003, are those the dates that you traveled home?

      A. No.

      85. Q. Can you tell me, did you travel home for this travel

      allowance?

      A. No.

      86. Q. And this receipt here, how did you obtain this receipt?

      A. It was somebody else, (inaudible:), this was, I forget it for the

      receipt

      87. Q. And for the weekend in question, what did you do?

      A. That weekend? i just drive around.

      8s. Q. You drove around Barstow?

      A. No.

      89. Q. No, where, where did you drive around at?

      A. Arizona."


    Regardless of any miscues in the handling of the Investigation, all such


contentions are nullified by a confession of wrongdoing. See the language set forth in

 Award 2 of Public Law Board No. 1790 as quoted in the last portion of Case No. 235.

    Even without the confession, the Carrier furnished sufficient evidence of

PL g tzo. 58!p
 Page 3 Award No.
                                              Case No. 237


Claimants culpability of the charges assessed. Carrier's actions are upheld by this

 Board.

                          AWARD


      Claim denied.


                          ORDER


      This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that


an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.

                4&Z %i iWo JQA..a

              Robert L. Hicks; Ch irtnan 8 Neutral Member


                          ~"~ , q-- N ~~.


Rick B. Wehrli, Labor Member es-MThGFF 4teklin9, Carrier Member

 Dated: , (.~ .- a b