Docket No. 104 PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO -.
 DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company


(2) Claimant I.M. Johnson shall be allowed the remedy
 prescribed in Rule 19(d)."
 FINDINGS:
 This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence,
 finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved are
 respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute herein.
 Prior to Claimant's dismissal, Claimant was a section
 foreman at Springfield, Minnesota; Claimant's seniority dated from
 May 1, 1964. On February 22, 1985, Claimant's regular starting time
 was 7:30 a.m. At about 7:55 a.m. on February 22, Roadmaster Cross
 received a phone call from claimant's girlfriend, who informed him
 that Claimant would be late due to car trouble. At about 11:15 a.m.,
 Roadmaster Cross arrived at the Sleepy Eye site and saw Claimant
 driving the section truck. While questioning Claimant, Roadmaster
 Cross detected a strong odor of alcohol. Claimant subsequently
 declined several offers to take either a breathalyzer or blood
 alcohol test. Claimant informed Roadmaster Cross that he had
 consumed six or seven beers the previous evening; Claimant also

stated that he was an alcoholic.
 Claimant subsequently was directed to appear at a formal investigation of the charge:

 Your responsibility in connection with your unauthorized tardiness when you failed to report for duty at the designated starting time of 7:30 A.M. and your violation of Rule "G" on Friday, February 22, 1985, when you were assigned as a Track Foreman at Springfield, MN. The investigation was held as scheduled, and a copy of the transcript has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
 This Board has reviewed all of the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of unauthorized tardiness and reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. The Claimant was admittedly late for work without proper authorization, and he also admitted that he had. consumed a large amount of alcohol the night before. He smelled of alcohol when he arrived for work, but he refused to take the requested blood or breath test. Hence, the only evidence in the record is the observations of the Carrier's witness whose testimony clearly sets forth a person under the influence of alcohol. Consequently, there is sufficient evidence in the record that the Claimant reported to work under the influence of alcohol.
 Once this Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to support the Carrier's finding of guilty, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline that was imposed. The Claimant was previously discharged for being on the job under the influence of alcohol in 1982. This Board reinstated him on the basis of his long seniority. This Board found that the discharge

                          2

/was excessive and returned him to work with a lengthy suspension. The incident which gives rise to this dispute occurred within less than a year after his earlier reinstatement.- This Board gave the Claimant a chance to reform his behavior, but he has failed. We do not find that the Carrier's action in terminating the Grievant in this case was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Hence, the claim must be denied.

      AWARD:


              Claim denied.

                              Vz

                      Ch irman, Neu ral M mb r


              Car er Me ber Neutral Memb


3