Cory Grant participated in extracurricular activities of track, cross-country and baseball. Because of his involvement in these activities, Cory is subject to the good conduct policy and the tobacco policy. Cory was running late for school on November 20, 1995, and was literally jogging down the hall to his first period class. There were students standing in the hall as well as the class-rooms because the bell had just rung. As Cory turned the corner from a main hall to one of the side halls, a fellow student and friend J.M. saw Cory and threw a can of chewing tobacco at him. Cory stated that it was a reflexive action to catch it rather than to let something hit him in the chest. So he caught the tobacco can, walked up to his friend and "just handed it back to him." The can was closed. He then went into his classroom and headed toward the back to pick up an assignment because he had been absent from school the day before. Just then his friend J.M. came up to him and was very agitated. J.M. stated that a teacher had seen Cory "give the tobacco back." About the same time the teacher referred to by J.M., came into the first period class and stated to Cory's teacher that "one of your students needs to accompany me to the assistant principal's office."

Mr. Shaltanis asked for the can of tobacco which J.M. handed to him. Both boys were sent to the in-school suspension room across the hall. Cory stated Mr. Shaltanis didn't check to see if either boy was chewing or had any tobacco in his mouth. Mr. Shaltanis stated that they had been in possession of the to-bacco and were in violation of the school's policy and the ad-ministration would talk to the boys later about ineligibility. Cory told Mr. Shaltanis that he did not have "possession" of the tobacco since he had simply caught it rather than let it hit him in the chest and then returned it to J.M. within a few seconds. The District's position is that both boys were found in possession of tobacco within the meaning of the policy. As a result, both boys were given and have served a three-day in-school suspension. The differing ineligibility that applied to J.M. and Cory resulted from the fact that Cory had had a pre-vious violation of the good conduct policy.

Appellant's contention on appeal is that the facts from her son's perspective, conflict with the facts as found by the Board. It is her belief that the Board adopted an incorrect version of the facts to the detriment of her son.

Given the fact that there is sufficient evidence to find that Cory "possessed" the tobacco on school premises in violation of both the tobacco policy as well as the good conduct policy, we have no choice but to recommend that the Board's decision be affirmed.

That the December 4, 1995, decision of the Board of Directors of the Ankeny Community School District, to uphold the administration's recommendation that Cory Grant be found in violation of the School's tobacco and good conduct policies was affirmed.