COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
 
 
 Present:  Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank
 
 
 WILLIAM S. HENDERSON
 
 v.	Record No. 1056-99-2                    MEMORANDUM OPINION*
                                                  PER CURIAM
 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND			SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
  COUNTY OF HENRICO
 
 
 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
 Buford M. Parsons, Jr., Judge
 
 (William S. Henderson, pro se, on briefs).
 
 (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Lisa J. 
 Rowley, Assistant Attorney General, on 
 brief), for appellee Virginia Employment 
 Commission.
 
 No brief for appellee County of Henrico.
 
 
 	William S. Henderson contends the Circuit Court of Henrico 
 County (circuit court) erred in affirming a decision of the 
 Virginia Employment Commission (Commission) that disqualified 
 him from receiving unemployment benefits.  The Commission found 
 that the Henrico County Department of Public Works (the County) 
 discharged Henderson for misconduct connected with work under 
 Code  60.2-618(2).  Henderson further contends that the circuit 
 court denied him a fair hearing and that he was wrongfully 
 terminated in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities 
 Act.  Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we 
 conclude this appeal is without merit.  Accordingly, we 
 summarily affirm the circuit court's decision.  See Rule 5A:27.
 Sufficiency of the Evidence
 	"Initially, we note that in any judicial proceedings 'the 
 findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by 
 evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and 
 the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of 
 law.'"  Israel v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 7 Va. App. 169, 
 172, 372 S.E.2d 207, 209 (1988) (citation omitted).  "In accord 
 with our usual standard of review, we 'consider the evidence in 
 the light most favorable to the finding by the Commission.'" 
 Wells Fargo Alarm Services, Inc. v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 
 24 Va. App. 377, 383, 482 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1997) (citation 
 omitted).
 	So viewed, the evidence proved that Henderson was employed 
 by the County as a street maintenance worker from September 17, 
 1997 through February 17, 1998.  The County has a policy 
 requiring employees to notify their supervisor each day they are 
 absent from work, unless they are otherwise excused from that 
 requirement.  Henderson did not return to work after February 
 17, 1998 because of an injury he had sustained in November 1997.  
 	Henderson went to his doctor on February 23, 1998 and 
 obtained a note excusing him from work through March 19, 1998.
 He did not, however, notify his supervisor, Ron Wehry, of his 
 absence until February 25, 1998, at which time Wehry told 
 Henderson to bring in a doctor's note supporting his continued 
 absence.  Wehry did not hear from Henderson after that, and 
 Henderson did not present the County with the doctor's note 
 until after he was discharged.  Henderson came to his employer's 
 office on March 6, 1998 to pick up his paycheck and to talk with 
 Wehry, but Wehry was away from the office.  Henderson was 
 advised to call back and schedule an appointment with Wehry, but 
 Henderson failed to do so.
 	On March 20, 1998, the County advised Henderson that he was 
 discharged for his failure to properly notify the County 
 regarding his absence from work.
 	Henderson testified that he called the office every day 
 during his absence.   Wehry testified, however, that he never 
 heard from Henderson after February 25, 1998.  The County 
 conceded that Henderson called in on a number of occasions, but 
 asserted that Henderson did not speak with Wehry as required.
 	[A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct 
 connected with his work" when he 
 deliberately violates a company rule 
 reasonably designed to protect the 
 legitimate business interests of his 
 employer, or when his acts or omissions are 
 of such a nature or so recurrent as to 
 manifest a willful disregard of those 
 interests and the duties and obligations he 
 owes his employer.
 
 Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va. 609, 611, 249 
 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978).  "Whether an employee's behavior 
 constitutes misconduct . . . is a mixed question of law and fact 
 reviewable by this court on appeal."  Israel, 7 Va. App. at 172, 
 372 S.E.2d at 209.
 	When viewed in a light most favorable to the Commission and 
 the County, the record establishes that Henderson failed to 
 comply with the County's policy to provide proper notice to his 
 supervisor regarding his absences.  Despite being instructed to 
 do so, Henderson did not bring in his doctor's note following 
 his February 25, 1998 conversation with Wehry until after he was 
 discharged.  And Henderson also failed to schedule an 
 appointment with Wehry after being directed to do so on March 6, 
 1998.  The requirements the County sought to impose on Henderson 
 regarding his extended absence were reasonable.  Henderson's 
 failure to comply with these requirements demonstrated a 
 deliberate and willful disregard of his duties and obligations 
 as a county employee, and constituted misconduct connected with 
 work.
 	"Once the employer has borne the burden of showing 
 misconduct connected with the work, . . . the burden shifts to 
 the employee to prove circumstances in mitigation of his or her 
 conduct."  Virginia Employment Comm'n v. Gantt, 7 Va. App. 631, 
 635, 376 S.E.2d 808, 811, aff'd on reh'g en banc, 9 Va. App. 
 225, 385 S.E.2d 247 (1989).  Whether a claimant's evidence 
 sufficiently mitigates his behavior so as to avoid 
 disqualification for benefits is a question of fact for the 
 Commission.  See Britt v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 14 Va. 
 App. 982, 986, 420 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1992).
 	Henderson testified that he called in every day, but that 
 Wehry was never present or otherwise available to talk to him.  
 He claimed that he was told to bring in his doctor's note when 
 he returned to work and that he did not have a proper, written 
 diagnosis to give to his employer.  
 	The Commission was not persuaded by Henderson's evidence of 
 mitigating circumstances.  The record supports the Commission's 
 finding that the County discharged Henderson for misconduct 
 connected with work and that Henderson failed to present 
 sufficient evidence in mitigation.  Accordingly, the Commission 
 did not err in disqualifying him from receiving unemployment 
 benefits.
 Right to a Fair Hearing
 	In his appellate brief, Henderson's first question 
 presented is:  "Did the dismissal of Henderson's appeal by the 
 District [sic] Court deny Henderson's constitutionally protected 
 right to a fair hearing?"  Henderson, however, provided neither 
 argument nor precedent in support of this question presented.  
 See Littlejohn v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 401, 409, 482 S.E.2d 
 853, 857 (1997) (a party waives an issue on appeal if she does 
 not submit written argument on the issue in her appellate 
 brief); Rule 5A:20(e).  Moreover, although the circuit court's 
 final order reflects that Henderson appeared before the court in 
 person, the record does not contain a transcript or statement of 
 facts.  See White v. Morano, 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 
 (1995) (the onus of providing a sufficient record of appeal 
 falls upon the party seeking to reverse the circuit court's 
 decision).  Without a proper record, we cannot determine whether 
 Henderson's rights were respected, or whether he properly 
 preserved this issue for appeal by objecting to the manner in 
 which the circuit court conducted his hearing.  Accordingly, we 
 will not address this question presented.
 Americans with Disabilities Act
 	Appellant contends that he was discharged in violation of 
 the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.  12101 et seq.  
 There is no evidence, however, that he raised this issue with 
 either the Commission or the circuit court.  And we will not 
 address the issue for the first time on appeal.  See Whitt v. 
 Race Fork Coal Corp., 18 Va. App. 71, 74, 441 S.E.2d 357, 359 
 (1994); Rule 5A:18.
 	For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit 
 court is affirmed.
 											Affirmed.
      * Pursuant to Code  17.1-413, recodifying Code 
  17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
 
 	  In his statement to the claims deputy, preceding his 
 appeals hearings, Henderson indicated that he did not know 
 whether he called in between February 25 and March 6 and that he 
 did not contact his employer after March 6 until he received the 
 discharge letter.
 
  
  
 
 - 7 -