IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 Aracelia Cedeno, 
 : 
 Petitioner 
 : : 
 v. 
 : No. 1594 C.D. 2001 
 : SUBMITTED:  November 9, 2001 
 Unemployment Compensation 
 : 
 Board of Review, 
 : 
 Respondent 
 : 
 BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Judge 
 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
 HONORABLE EMIL E. NARICK, Senior Judge 
 OPINION NOT REPORTED 
 MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 BY SENIOR JUDGE NARICK 
 FILED: January 24, 2002 

 Aracelia Cedeno (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of an order of 
 the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a referee's 
 determination that Claimant is ineligible for compensation pursuant to Section 
 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). 

   We affirm. 
                                         
 Keystone Wood Specialties, Inc. (Employer) of Lancaster, 
 Pennsylvania employed Claimant as a sander from May 30, 2000 through January 
 19, 2001.  During her employment, Claimant felt she was being sexually harassed 
 by a male co-worker and reported this to Employer.  Employer addressed the 
 matter immediately with the co-worker.  Though the situation improved, there was 
 another incident with the co-worker involving an inappropriate hand gesture and 
 sexual comments.  As a result of this behavior by the co-worker, Employer 
 discharged the co-worker in December 2000. 

 On January 5, 2001, Claimant gave Employer two-week notice of her 
 intent to resign on January 19, 2001, telling Employer that she was quitting 
 because she "was going to move to Chicago to live near my family." 
 Supplemental Reproduced Record (SSR) 24.  In her questionnaire for the 
 Lancaster office of employment security (OES), Claimant stated that she 
 voluntarily quit and gave the following reasons for leaving her job: 
	 I want to work as a nail technician, I have the P.A. nail 
	 tech license and I move to Chicago because I have a 
	 better chance [of] working with the license as a nail 
	 technician, and to better myself, go back to school to 
	 finish the cosmetology course. 
 SSR 12.
 
 On January 19, 2001, Claimant left Employer and relocated to 
 Chicago.  On February 26, 2001, the OES determined Claimant was ineligible for 
 unemployment compensation benefits and Claimant appealed.  The referee held a 
 hearing that included Employer's witness, the Claimant's supervisor, who testified 
 in person.  Claimant testified by telephone. 

 On March 5, 2001, the referee issued his decision affirming the OES 
 determination.  Summarized above are the referee's Findings of Fact Nos. 1 ­ 9 
 and No. 11 that stated that Claimant voluntarily quit and subsequently relocated to 
 Chicago.  Finding of Fact No. 10 stated that "[t]he claimant did not tell her 
 supervisor that she feared for her safety" and Finding of Fact no. 12 observed that 
 "[c]ontinuing work was available for the claimant had she desired to remain 
 employed."  SSR 3.  Claimant appealed and the Board affirmed, adopting the 
 referee's decision. 

 On appeal to this Court, Claimant contends that Findings of Fact Nos. 
 2 ­ 7 that outline the sexual harassment she felt from her co-worker and summarize 
 Employer's actions in response to her complaints are contradicted by Finding of 
 Fact No. 10.  Apparently, Claimant believes that she did not need to specifically 
 tell her supervisor that she feared for her safety because she thought such fear 
 would be obvious to him.  Claimant states in her brief that her supervisor knew 
 what she had experienced and also knew of her co-worker's bad temper and threats 
 of retaliation in other work place conflicts.  Claimant's Br. at 11-14.  She further 
 complains about the lack of confidentiality she discovered regarding the situation 
 with her male co-worker, that that lack of confidentiality made her working 
 conditions intolerable and that Employer did not provide her with counseling. 
                                         
 In an unemployment compensation appeal, where the Board's 
 findings of fact are supported by substantial record evidence, those facts are 
 conclusive on appeal.  Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977).  The weakness of Claimant's position here lies 
 in the fact that her argument is based upon her interpretation, not the Board's, of 
 the facts.  Hager v. Unemployment Board of Review, 482 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 
 1984).  During the referee's hearing, when asked if she told her supervisor that she 
 was quitting because she was afraid her former male co-worker would harm her, 
 she replied "no."  SSR at 25. 

 The Court is aware that Claimant was not represented by counsel at 
 any stage of this proceeding, however, it is well established that any person who 
 chooses to represent herself in a legal proceeding must assume the risk that her 
 lack of expertise and legal training may prove her undoing.  Vann v. 
 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 508 Pa. 139, 494 A.2d 1081 
 (1985).  The facts found by the Board conclusively establish that Claimant did not 
 carry her burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for her 
 voluntarily leaving her job with Employer.  Baird v. Unemployment Compensation 
 Board of Review, 372 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977).  The Board properly denied 
 benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. 

 Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                         
 EMIL E. NARICK, Senior Judge