PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes DEC 3 3 39PH'g0
 TO ., . . . . .. ..

 DISPUTE: CSX Transportation, Inc. kDJUs""Tf~,$iAD~·~·'°`--. ~~,1·BOVr;DD
 ~,$i BOARD
Dismissal of K_ L. Hall, ID# 171839, as a result of investigation held July 20, 1990, at Tampa, Florida." FINDINGS: As a result of the inconsistency between the statement of Claimant K. L. Hall taken on January 17, 1989, and the Claimant's testimony as a witness in the trial of W. J. Reddick, Claimant was directed, by certified letter from the Company to attend a formal investigation charging him with the following:

 You are being charged with possible violation of those parts of CSX Transportation Operating Rule 501, which reads "Employees must not be ...dishonest..., make any false statements or conceal facts concerning matters under investigation". A formal hearing was held on July 20, '1990, and.as.a result, Claimant was. discharged.' The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf,. challenging'hls dismissal.-.
 _This Board has reviewed the evide"nce-and testimony in this case, including the two statements made by the C.laimant with respect to the injury to Mr. Reddick, and we must find that there is sufficient'- . evidence to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of being dishonest when he made the inconsistent statements with respect to Mr. Reddick's injury. The record reveals that when the Claimant was interviewed with respect to Mr. Reddick's personal injury by Carrier personnel on November 22, 1988, the Claimant stated that he did not notice anything wrong with the~wrench that was being used by Mr.
 5(3/4 10.3'7 C ca. 5 a r a

 Reddick. He stated that he did not examine it after the injury
 occurred. He also indicated that he did not see anything wrong with
 the anchor. However, on June 18, 1990, when the Claimant testified in
 the case against the Carrier brought by Mr. Reddick in the Superior
 Court of Georgia the Claimant stated that there was something wrong
 with the wrench. He also indicated that it was an "improper tool" and

 that is what caused Mr. Reddick's injury. statements were inconsistent.

 Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. .
 In the case at hand, although the Claimant had nearly 13 years of service with the Carrier, his record includes a number of disciplines and careless work habits. Numerous boards have found that acts of dishonesty are dismiss.ible offenses, even on_the'first occasion., Given the record of the Grievant,, and the seriousness of, .this act of

 dishonesty, this Board must find .that.the.Carrier did not act -
 unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it.terminated.the .
 Claimant's employment. Therefore,.,the claim will be denied.

 Obviously, those two

 Award:

Neutral bet

 Organizatioa,,.,Member