IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Justin Bridgeforth,
    Petitioner
    v.        
   Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
   Respondent 
No. 810 C.D. 2004
Submitted:  September 24, 2004 
BEFORE:  HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge   
HONORABLE ROCHELLE  S. FRIEDMAN, Judge   
HONORABLE JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge     
OPINION NOT REPORTED   
MEMORANDUM OPINION  BY SENIOR JUDGE JIULIANTE      
FILED:  December 14, 2004     

 Justin Bridgeforth (Claimant) petitions for review of the March 23, 2004 order of the
 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the referee's denial
 of Claimant's petition for benefits under Section  402(b) of the Unemployment
 Compensation Law (Law).  We affirm. 

 The Board made the following findings of fact: 
 
 1. [Claimant] was last employed as a tumbler by SPS Technologies, Inc. [Employer]
 from September 11, 1995, at a final rate of $15.11 per hour and his last day of
 work was July 14, 2003.   
 2. [Claimant] injured his back at work on July 14, 2003, and sought medical attention.
 [Claimant's] physician recommended that he remain off work until further notice.  
 3. [Claimant] contacted [Employer's] nurse practitioner immediately after his appointment
 and was told to bring in medical documentation about his back.  
 4. On July 15, 2003, [Employer] mailed information to  [Claimant's] home address
 regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act [FM LA2], and its short-term disability
 policy. [Employer's] correspondence was not returned as undeliverable by the postal
 authorities.  
 5. [Employer's] correspondence requested [Claimant] to provide medical certification
 regarding his condition within fifteen days.  
 6. [Claimant] did not respond to [Employer's] correspondence.  
 7. The Board does not credit [Claimant's] assertion that he did not receive 
[Employer's] correspondence.  
 8. On July 31, 2003,  [Employer] mailed another letter to [Claimant] stating that
 [Claimant] must contact [Employer] by August 8, 2003, or he would be considered to
 have voluntarily terminated his employment.  
 9. On August 6, 2003, [Employer] called [Claimant] and left a message for [Claimant]
 to contact [Employer] immediately regarding his employment.  
 10. [Claimant] did not contact [Employer] by August 8, 2003, and was considered to 
 have voluntarily terminated his employment.
 11. [Claimant] provided no explanation for his failure to respond to [Employer's]
 letter of July 31, 2003, or the phone call of August 6, 2003. (Findings of Fact
 Nos. 1-11) Based upon these findings, the Board concluded that even though Claimant
 may have had a legitimate reason for not working (i.e., his injury), he made no
 contact with Employer after July 14, 2003.  Claimant failed to contact  Employer
 or to provide a credible explanation for his failure to produce medical documentation
 upon Employer's request. Thus, the Board determined that Claimant's lack of communication
 over several weeks constituted job abandonment. Additionally, the Board concluded
 that Claimant was provided a full and fair opportunity to present his position and,
 therefore, denied his request for a remand. After the Board denied Claimant's request
 for reconsideration, this petition for review followed.

 On review, we are limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact are 
 supported by substantial evidence, whether con stitutional rights were violated or
 whether errors of law were made. Sharp Equip. Co. v. Unemployment Compensation
 Board of Review , 808 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). 
 
 Claimant also contends that he was told by Employer's nurse practitioner to provide 
 medical documentation of his injury upon his return to work. Claimant, however, did
 not testify as such. When asked by the referee what the nurse practitioner told him,
 Claim ant stated "She said to bring in a doctor's note about your back."  (N.T. 6) 
 Claimant did not testify that the nurse practitioner told him to bring in his medical
 documentation when he returned to work. 
 
 Claimant maintains that he did not receive the July 15, 2003 mailing which included
 the short-term disability and FMLA applications and argues that Employer should have
 sent it by certified mail. The Board found, however, that the mailing was not returned
 by the postal authorities as undeliverable and that Claimant's testimony was not
 credible on this point. (F.F. 4, 7) Notably, Claimant did not rebut Ms. DiNapoli's
 testimony regarding the July 31, 2003  follow-up letter or the August 6, 2003 telephone
 call. 
 
 Claimant further suggests that Ms. DiNapoli's testimony is not credible where she
 testified that she called Claimant's last known phone number and left a message for
 him to return her call. In his brief, Claim ant provides the Court with a different
 phone number than that which Ms. DiNapoli called. Interestingly, however, Claimant
 made no statement at the referee hearing that Ms. DiNapoli called the wrong phone
 number and/or that his number had changed and that he provided Employer with his
 current phone number. Had this been the case, we believe it was Claimant's
 responsibility to bring the information to the referee's  attention.   

 In unemployment compensation matters, the Board is the ultimate fact finder and is
 empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of
 witnesses. DeRiggi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 856 A.2d 253
 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). The Board's findings of fact are based upon the credible
 testimony of Ms. DiNapoli. Claimant's challenge is merely a  misinterpretation
 of the testimony provided. Accordingly, we find no merit to Claimant's stated
 arguments that he did not voluntarily terminate his position and Employer's
 witness gave inconsistent and incredible testimony.   

 In his final argument, Claimant contends that the referee erred in failing to keep
 the record open in order for him to provide medical documentation regarding his
 injury. Within that argument, Claimant suggests that the referee denied him a
 full and fair hearing because the referee did not help Claimant to  present his
 case. 
 
 Additionally, Claimant's argument that Employer failed to include a cover letter
 with the mailing is without merit.  Claimant admitted that he had previously
 received benefits under the FMLA.  (N.T. 17)  Therefore, he should have known how
 to properly complete the forms. 
 
 "Where a claimant appears before  a referee unrepresented by counsel,  the referee must be more than usually cautious  to insure that all relevant issues are  examined and that a ll parties have an o pportunity to full y present their case."    Brennan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 487 A.2d 73, 77 (Pa.  Cmwlth. 1985).  The referee m ust assi st uncounseled claimants in a m anner  consistent with the im partial exercise of his duties.   Id;  see also  34  Pa. Code $  101.21(a)(where a party is not  represente d by counsel, the tribunal should advise  him as to his rights, aid him in examining and cross-examining witnesses, and give  him every assistance co mpatible with the im partial discharge of its offic ial duties).   The referee is not  required t o become,  and should not assume the role of, a  claimant's advocate.   McFadden v. Unemployment  Compensation Board of  Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).    To the extent that Claim ant's th ird argument is not repetitive of his  prior two arguments, we note that it similarly lacks merit.  Claimant complains that  the referee shoul d have held the record  open so that he could have obtained  medical documentation regardi ng his injury.  Claimant attem pted to introduce into  evidence a note from his doctor, dated July  14, 2003, which Claimant ad mittedly  obtained at the "last minute."  (N.T. 8)     The  referee  sustained  Ms.  DiNapoli's  objection to the doctor's note based on authenticity.    Our review of the record satisfies us that the referee complied with his  duties under the law.  At the beginning of the hearing, the referee advised Claimant  of his right to be represented by counsel, hi s right to call witnesses, and his right t o  cross-examine adverse witnesses.  The  referee  elicited  testimony from  Claimant  regarding to whom he repor ted his injury and the circu mstances involving receipt  of Em ployer's correspondences and term ination notice.  The referee further  provided Claimant with an opport unity at  the end of the hearing to provi de any  additional testimony in support of his position. 
 
 6 
 
 Moreover, we cannot agree that the  referee erred in failing to keep the record
 open so that Claimant could submit medical testimony.  As noted by the  referee,
 the hearing notices fully explained to Claimant that he had the right to  present
 witnesses at the hearing and the right to subpoena records if need be.
 Notwithstanding, we again note that  Claimant testified that he did not  provide
 the July 14, 2003 doctor's note to Employer.  When asked by the referee  whether
 he had provided Employer with a  copy of the note, Claimant replied "No, 
 I didn't.  I actually got this last minute.  This is not the official file." 
 (N.T. 8)

 Thus, regardless of whether Claimant would have  had an opportunity to present 
 medical evidence of his injury, he did  not  communicate  to  Employer  his
 reasons  for not reporting to work for several  weeks.  The Board  therefore
 properly  concluded that Claimant voluntarily abandoned his employment. 
 See Simpson v.  Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 395 A.2d 309
 (Pa. Cmwlth.  1978)(claimant's unauthorized absence fo r 11 consecutive work
 days c onstituted  job abandonment).   

 Accordingly, we affirm.                                                 
                    JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge