NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5564-03T15564-03T1

ALEX O. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted September 13, 2005-
Decided: Before Judges Axelrad and Kimmelman.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 03-A-19156-000-XO.

Vera McCoy, attorney for appellant.
Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Alex O. Gonzalez, appeals from an April 22, 2004 decision of the Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a decision of the Appeal Tribunal which in turn upheld a decision of the Director of the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance that he must return unemployment checks mailed to his bank in the amount of $6,140 and that he be fined $1,535.

Gonzalez applied for unemployment benefits on March 3, 2002. Such benefits were paid through September 28, 2002. Unfortunately for Gonzalez, he was imprisoned on May 6, 2002 for a parole violation but the unemployment checks continued and were endorsed and deposited in his bank account by his former live-in girlfriend, who also certified as to his continued unemployment. She withdrew the money from an ATM machine. When the Division received information that Gonzalez was imprisoned, the unemployment checks which had already amounted to $6,140 were discontinued.

Gonzalez claimed his former live-in girlfriend's actions were not authorized. Significantly, Gonzalez never filed a police report alleging her unlawful activities.

After a hearing, the Deputy Director and the Appeal Tribunal all believed Gonzalez to be untruthful and that his former live-in girlfriend was authorized. As indicated, the Board affirmed.

A presumption of correctness attaches to a final decision of an administrative agency. See Gerba v. Bd. of Trs., 83 N.J. 174, 189 (1980). Here, we have but a limited function to perform. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). We may vacate an administrative agency's decision only where it can be demonstrated that the agency's decision was "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it [was] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71 (1985). "Where . . . the determination is founded upon sufficient credible evidence seen from the totality of the record and on that record findings have been made and conclusions reached involving agency expertise, the agency decision should be sustained." Gerba, supra, 83 N.J. at 189 (citing Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that the factual findings made and the final decision are supported by substantial credible evidence. Under the circumstances, we are obligated to accept the decision of the Board of Review. Self v. Board of Review,

Affirmed.