ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION I

JACQUELINE ASHLEY,

APPELLANT

v.

DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT AND USA DRUG

APPELLEES

E02-143

APRIL 9, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF REVIEW,

NO. 2002-BR-00607

AFFIRMED

Jacqueline Ashley was fired from her job at USA Drug. The Employment Security Division denied her claim for unemployment benefits, finding that she had been discharged for willful misconduct connected with the work, specifically, theft of company property. The ESD notification of determination, with a mailing date of January 14, 2002, informed Ashley of her right to appeal within twenty days after the mailing of the notice. She did not attempt to file the appeal until after the twenty-day period had expired.

Ashley subsequently contacted legal counsel, who appeared with her before the Appeal Tribunal at a telephone hearing to establish whether the late filing was the result of circumstances beyond her control. The hearing officer dismissed the appeal upon finding that it was untimely filed and that Ashley had not shown that the late filing was due to

circumstances beyond her control. Ashley appealed the dismissal to the Board of Review. The Board affirmed the dismissal, finding that Ashley's appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was untimely filed and that she had not shown that the lateness of the appeal was due to circumstances beyond her control.

Ashley now appeals to this court, arguing two points: (1) ESD wrongfully denied her right to appeal by refusing to accept her appeal filing regardless of the twenty-day limit; (2) the hearing officer and Board of Review abused their discretion in refusing to accept her filing outside the twenty-day limitations timely. We find no merit to either of these points and affirm.

1. Whether the Employment Security Division wrongfully denied her right to appeal by refusing to accept her appeal filing regardless of the twenty-day limit.

Ashley refers in her argument to the transcript of her testimony before the hearing officer. She testified that she had been notified by mail of the denial of her claim; that she saw that she had twenty days in which to file an answer; that it was her understanding that she had twenty working days, rather than twenty calendar days, in which to file; and that she had no discussion with anyone about the time limit. She stated her belief, based upon her understanding of the timeliness issue, that she had timely filed her appeal. She said that she went to the unemployment office on the twentieth day, a Monday which date she could not recall, and that she had not counted Saturdays and Sundays in arriving at the date. She said that she had not filed her appeal earlier because she did not have transportation, and she did not respond to the hearing officer's inquiring whether she had read that she could have filedby mail.

Ashley argues that she was denied due process in not being allowed to file her appeal on the day she went to the agency to do so. She contends that, although she ultimately received a hearing under Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. App. 1980), she would have suffered less prejudice had her initial filing been accepted because the time violation would have been shorter. Paulino directs only that a claimant be afforded an opportunity to be heard on her contention that a late filing resulted from circumstances beyond her control; it does not address whether prejudice increases as the lateness of the filing increases. We will not address appellant's argument, as it is not supported by convincing argument or authority, and it is not apparent without further research that appellant's position is well taken. Rodriguez v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 8, 952 S.W.2d 186 (1997).

2. Whether the hearing officer and Board of Review abused their discretion in refusing to accept Ashley's filing outside the twenty-day limitations [as] timely.

Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-524(a)(1) (Repl. 2002), a party may appeal the agency's determination by filing a written notice of appeal with the appeal tribunal or at any office of the Arkansas Employment Security Department within twenty days after the date the notice was mailed. However, if it is determined by an appeal tribunal or the Board of Review that the appeal is not perfected within the twenty-day period as a result of circumstances beyond the appellant's control, the appeal may be considered as having been filed timely. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-524(a)(2). In arguing that the hearing officer andBoard of Review abused their discretion in refusing to accept her late filing as timely, Ashley again refers to her testimony that she counted working days rather than calendar days. She argues that her conclusion that weekends are not included in the statutory time limit is not unreasonable.

On appeal, the findings of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Lovelace v. Director, 78 Ark. App. 127, 79 S.W.3d 400 (2002). We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's findings. Id. Even when there is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it. Id.

The Board was not required to accept the explanation of counting only working days as a reasonable interpretation of the statutorily mandated twenty-day period. We have no hesitancy in concluding that the Board could have reasonably concluded that Ashley had not shown that the untimely filing was due to circumstances beyond her control. Again, Ashley has not presented to us convincing argument or any authority to support her point of appeal. We affirm the Board's dismissal of her appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.

Affirmed.

Hart and Crabtree, JJ., agree.