Jamie Sebastian v. New Jersey Department of Education, 3/30/2023, (#94-23)

94-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jamie Sebastian,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE)
that she had not met the requirements for issuance of a Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant (LDT-C)
endorsement because she lacked twenty-one (21) graduate credits needed to obtain the endorsement.
Petitioner argued that her alternative education and experience satisfied a one-to-one-correspondence to
the missing credits, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). The SBE found that petitioner’s experience
was geared toward special education instruction and not to the roles and responsibilities of someone
serving in the role of a consultant, which is an educational services certificate, rather than an instructional
or administrative certificate.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the issue in this case is whether petitioner satisfied her burden of
demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law when it determined not to accept petitioner’s alternative education to satisfy
the remaining requirements that petitioner needed to receive the LDT-C endorsement; 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
14.10 sets forth the requirements for issuance of this certificate; the SBE determined that petitioner did
not satisfy the requirements for certification because she lacks twenty-one (21) graduate credits and her
alternative education and experience was not deemed equivalent to satisfy that deficiency; and petitioner
failed to establish that the SBE’s decision to deny her application for the LDT-C endorsement was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the ALJ affirmed the SBE’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: the petition of appeal in this matter was filed in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3, not N.J.A.C. 6A:4; the ALJ mistakenly applied the wrong standard of review
in the Initial Decision, stating that the SBE’s decision will not be overturned unless the petitioner proves
that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law; the appropriate standard
of review here is whether the SBE’s decision was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3; nonetheless, the record of this matter demonstrates that the petitioner did not
complete the required course work and that the SBE’s decision to deny her application was consistent with
the applicable regulatory provisions. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was modified with respect
to the appropriate standard of review and the petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01695-22
Agency Dkt. No. 11-1/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jamie Sebastian,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the New Jersey State Board of Examiners’ (Board)
denial of her application for a Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant (LDT-C) certificate. The
Board denied petitioner’s application because she was missing twenty-one (21) graduate credits
required for the endorsement. Petitioner argued that her alternative education and experience
satisfied a one-to-one-correspondence to the missing credits, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.12(b). The Board found that petitioner’s experience was geared toward special education
instruction and not to the roles and responsibilities of someone serving in the role of a consultant,
which is an educational services certificate, rather than an instructional or administrative
certificate. Following a motion to dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner
did not meet requirements for an LDT-C Certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.10.
As a threshold matter, a discussion of the applicable standard of review for petitions of
appeal that are filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is necessary. When there is a challenge to a determination
94-23

2
made by an office within the Department of Education, the Commissioner is not mandated to give
deference to her staff, but instead determines if the finding was legally appropriate. See, Board of
Trustees of the Passaic County Elks Cerebral Palsy Center v. New Jersey Dept. of Educ.,
Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance, Commissioner’s Decision No. 334-14, dated
August 14, 2014 (finding that a decision of the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance is not
given deference by the Commissioner). Moreover, where the Department of Education has limited
the scope of review of a subordinate office or division, it has done so by regulation, i.e. appeals filed
under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 challenging a decision of the State Board of Examiners revoking/suspending a
certificate, or a decision of the School Ethics Commission.
In the Initial Decision, the ALJ mistakenly referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), applied deference
to the Board, and stated that the Board’s decision in this case would not be overturned unless the
petitioner proves that the Board acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
It is important to recognize that a decision by the Board denying an application for a certificate is
not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable standard of review that is afforded to
appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4, challenging a decision of the Board revoking or suspending a
certificate. See, Jessica Walder v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners,
Commissioner’s Decision No. 503-14, decided December 29, 2014 (finding that the Commissioner
does not give deference to a decision of the State Board of Examiners denying a request for
issuance of a certificate). The petition of appeal in this matter was filed in accordance with N.J.A.C.
6A:3, which consists of completely different regulatory provisions than N.J.A.C. 6A:4; these two
Administrative Code Sections should never be conflated. As such, the standard of review that
governs appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 does not apply to this case. Therefore, the appropriate

3
standard of review of the Boards’ decision is whether the decision is consistent with the applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions.
Upon review of the record and applying the appropriate standard of review, the
Commissioner agrees with the ALJ’s ultimate determination that petitioner has not met the
requirements for an LDT-C Certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.10. As the ALJ noted, while
there are similarities between the job description for the position petitioner performed in Georgia
and the requirements for an LDT-C Certificate, the Georgia job description included more teacher-
related duties. The limited amount of collaboration required by the Georgia job does not rise to the
level of consultant experience that would be sufficient to meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
14.10.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is modified with respect to the appropriate
standard of review and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
March 30, 2023
March 31, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-2022
AGENCY DKT. NO. 11-1/22
JAMIE SEBASTIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
Jamie Sebastian, petitioner, pro se
Sydney Finkelstein, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J.
Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: January 9, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023
BEFORE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Jamie Sebastian appeals the decision to deny her application for a
Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant (LDT-C) endorsement by the State Board of
Examiners (Board of Examiners or respondent). The Board of Examiners contends that
the petitioner lacked twenty-one graduate credits required for the endorsement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 16, 2021, the Board of Examiners denied the petitioner’s application
for an LDT-C endorsement. Petitioner filed a petition appealing this decision on January
14, 2022. The Department of Education (DOE) transmitted this matter as a contested
case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on March 4, 2022.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
On February 24, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g). During a conference call on April 25, 2022, petitioner requested
and was granted until June 1, 2022, to seek legal representation. On June 1, 2022,
petitioner affirmed her desire to proceed without counsel and this tribunal set a briefing
schedule. Petitioner submitted her response on June 27, 2022, in accordance with the
briefing schedule and the respondent filed a reply brief on July 13, 2022. The
respondent’s motion was denied on August 15, 2022.
A hearing was held on October 27, 2022. The record was held open for receipt of
transcripts and post-hearing summations. Post-hearing summations were received on
January 9, 2023, and the record closed on that date.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The facts are not in dispute. Accordingly, I FIND:
1. Petitioner applied for a Learning Disabilities Teacher-Consultant
endorsement on June 4, 2021. (Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss1, at 2.)
2. Petitioner appeared before the Board of Examiners on October 28, 2021,
and on December 16, 2021, the Board of Examiners denied her application.
(Petitioner’s petition.)
1 Hereinafter RMTD.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
3
3. On May 15, 2022, petitioner completed the Orientation of Psychological
Testing class. (Petitioner’s response to the RMTD.)
4. Petitioner has an earned a master’s degree in special education from
Walden University. (RMTD.)
5. Petitioner has earned three semester credits in the following classes:
a. Teacher as Professional
b. Design, Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment
c. Strategic Teaching English as a Second Language
d. Leadership, Collaboration & Consultation
e. Special Education: Due Process
f. Effective Evaluation & Assessment Practice
g. Adaptive Instructional Evidence Strategies
h. Creating Effective Behavioral Interventions
i. Literacy Based Instructional Intervention
j. Action Research for Educators
k. Tools for Doctoral Research Demystifying Doctoral Writing
(Petitioner’s Response to the RMTD.)
6. Petitioner has earned five semester hour credits in the following classes:
a. Leading the Future in Education
b. Special Education: Theory & Practice
c. Lead Change in Special Education
d. Research Theory
e. Research for Special Education
f. Designing Specialized Instruction for Diverse Learners
g. Effective School Intervention
h. Effective Practices in Special Education
i. Capstone Project
j. Quantitative Reasoning
k. Qualitative Reasoning
l. Testing and Measurement
Ibid.
7. Petitioner worked as a special education resource teacher for seven years
in Georgia and is currently employed as a special education teacher and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
4
serves a member of the Intervention and Referral Service Team in the Toms
River School District.
8. Petitioner was granted an emergency LTD-C certificate which is good for
one year and can be extended twice.
Testimony
For petitioner
Kelly Umbach (Umbach) has been a supervisor of special education for six years
in the Toms River School District. She has oversight of the child study team (CST) and
supervised the petitioner directly. Umbach stated that petitioner was qualified for the
LDT-C position based upon her prior experience in Georgia. Petitioner is using the
emergency certificate and is performing as a strong LDT-C. Petitioner has written strong
Individualized Education Plans (IEP) and has filled all expectations. Umbach hired
petitioner.
Dana Weber (Weber) has been a supervisor of special education for four years
and was a LDT-C for ten years with the Toms River School District. She has oversight of
teachers and programs from kindergarten through grade twelve. Weber observed
petitioner this past school year. Petitioner has written IEPs, done case management, re-
evaluation meetings and conducted testing. Petitioner has fulfilled the role of LDT-C and
has been a valuable resource, and a key person on the CST. Petitioner has given
recommendations and strategies including behavioral strategies, supported the
administration within the schools and worked well with others. Weber believed petitioner
was fully qualified to be a LDT-C.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
5
For respondent
Rani Singh (Singh) has been the Director of Certification since 2019, and also
served as secretary to the Board of Examiners during that time. She has a bachelor's
degree in biology from Rutgers University. She has oversight over all education certificate
applications. As of May 31, 2022, a new application system was installed and
implemented in which applicants submitted an application, paid a fee and signed an oath.
Once all the documents were received, the case was assigned to an examiner for review.
If documents were missing, the examiner contacted the applicant with a notice outlining
what was still needed.
Petitioner was missing twenty-one graduate credits. Singh was not the original
examiner, however, she reviewed the credential appeal packet and agreed that twenty-
one graduate credits were needed. Accordingly, petitioner’s application was denied, and
she appealed. The Board of Examiners denied her appeal because the Board of
Examiners found petitioner’s experience was instructional based and not consultant
based. Although petitioner completed an additional class since filing her application the
additional class was not sufficient to issue a standard certificate, however, the additional
class was sufficient to issue an emergency certificate. The emergency certificate was
good for one year and could be renewed twice.
Because the LDT-C certificate is unique to New Jersey, there is no reciprocity with
any other state. Petitioner can re-apply because applicants are given six months to
complete their applications.
Additional Findings
The finder of the facts must determine the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’ testimony.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy
of belief. “Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself. It must be such as the common experience and
observations of mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” In re Estate of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
6
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider the
witness’ interest in the outcome, motive, or bias; the accuracy of the witness’ recollection;
the witness’ ability to know what s/he is talking about; the reasonableness of the
testimony; the witness’ demeanor when testifying; the witness’ candor or evasion; and
the presence of inconsistent or contradictory statements. A trier of fact may reject
testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other
testimony or with common experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony.
Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp, 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
The fact finder must weigh the testimony of each witness and then determine the
weight to give to it. Through this process, the fact finder may accept all of it, a portion of
it or none of it. Based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, I FIND the
following as additional FACTS: Petitioner testified credibly and earnestly about her
teaching experience in Georgia which she believed was comparable to the duties of an
LDT-C in New Jersey. In addition, she clearly articulated her passion for students with
disabilities. I further FIND that petitioner has received numerous accolades for her job
performance while in Georgia and currently in New Jersey and is a valued asset to her
supervisors.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The New Jersey State Board of Examiners has established a certificate system
requiring “any person employed as a teaching staff member by a district board of
education shall hold a valid and appropriate certificate.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.1(a). There
are three types of certificates — instructional, administrative, and educational services.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.3(a). In addition to certificates, the Board of Examiners has provided
for special endorsements that attach to a specific certificate. This qualifies an individual
to teach in a particular area based upon the endorsement on the certificate.
A LDT-C is an endorsement under the educational services certificate. The
requirements to obtain a LDT-C endorsement are outlined in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.10(c)
which mandates:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
7
(b) To be eligible for the standard educational services
certificate with a learning disabilities teacher-consultant
endorsement, a candidate shall:
1. Hold a master’s or higher degree from a regionally
accredited college or university;
2. Hold a standard New Jersey or out-of-State
instructional certificate; and
3. Have three years of successful teaching experience.
(c) A candidate who satisfies (b) above also shall complete
one of the following:
1. A Department-approved graduate program for the
preparation of learning disabilities teacher-consultants;
2. A consultant-level master’s degree in educational
disabilities from a nationally accredited program; or
3. A minimum of 24 semester-hour graduate credits
chosen from the areas listed below. The candidate
shall complete the requirements in (c)3i through ix
below and may take elective credits in any area in (c)3i
through x below.
i. Education of students with disabilities, including
study in history of the development of educational
services for children in each area of exceptionality;
study of present services, research, and professional
ethics dealing with the characteristics of children who
differ from the norm intellectually, physically, socially,
and emotionally; evaluation of present practices in the
education of students with disabilities; study of the
relationship of educational practices and their
environmental settings; and cultural and linguistic
diversity;
ii. Learning theory, including study in motivation and its
effect on learning; leading theories of learning; rewards
and incentives; and interests and climate for learning;
iii. Remediation of basic skills, including study in
research-based corrective methods and materials as
related to specific diagnostic findings, NJSLS
requirements, and the school and classroom
environment;
iv. Physiological bases for learning, including study of
the neurological development and physical readiness
of the normal child for learning; abnormal health

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
8
conditions that contribute to educational disability; and
metabolic and infectious disorders that affect learning;
v. Orientation in psychological testing, including study
of an overview of tests applicable to educational
psychology; interpretation of psychological reports as
applied to tests administered; the appropriate use of
tests and the potential misuse of test results; and test
construction theory;
vi. Diagnosis of learning problems, including study of
the nature and cause of learning problems; formulating
an evaluation plan for educational assessments;
administering and interpreting technically sound and
culturally responsive standardized instruments and
functional assessment procedures to determine
educational levels, underlying deficits, and learning
style; methods of arriving at a diagnosis based on
evidence available from each child study team (CST)
member; and ways of reporting diagnostic findings;
vii. Accommodations and modifications as a method of
providing service to children with learning problems,
including utilization of validated methods for adapting
instruction for diverse learning needs; technology for
students with disabilities; understanding of
accommodations and modifications in curriculum,
materials, methods, classroom structures, and
assessment; utilization of the individualized education
plan (IEP) and the NJSLS accommodation and
modification; methods to enhance social relationships
and positive behavior methods; focus on the inclusive
classroom environment; legal issues related to the
CST's responsibilities, including the requirements of a
free appropriate public education, least restrictive
environment, the determination of eligibility, and IEP
development;
viii. Collaboration theory and practice, including theory
and process of conducting collaborations; establishing
collaborative partnerships between general and
special educators, with parents and families, and with
paraprofessionals; methods of co-teaching, including
in-class support and classroom consultation;
preparation for participating in a multidisciplinary CST
setting with opportunities for modeling and participation
in team staffings and parent conferences; opportunities
to observe, rehearse, and present results from
evaluations in practice sessions;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
9
ix. A college-supervised, consultant-level practicum in
diagnosis and remediation of educational disabilities in
school and clinical situations. The definition and nature
of this practicum, and the courses in which it will be
provided, should be clear in the program description.
The practicum shall provide for a minimum of 90 clock
hours of college-supervised experience. The
practicum shall not be a student-teaching experience;
and
x. Elective study chosen from areas such as group
dynamics; methods and materials for teaching
students with disabilities; curriculum development in
the teaching of students with disabilities; teaching of
reading; assistive/adaptive technology; interviewing
and counseling; educational psychology; and
community resources.
Here, it is uncontroverted that petitioner held a master’s degree from a regionally
accredited college or university, held a New Jersey or out-of-state instructional certificate
and had three years of successful teaching experience. However, the Board of
Examiners determined that petitioner lacked twenty-one of the twenty-four graduate
credits required. In its denial, the Board of Examiners stated that petitioner:
did not establish a compelling one-to-one correspondence
between the LDT-C requirements and her experience and
education. The LDT-C [endorsement] is an education service
certificate rather than instructional or administrative and it
authorizes its holder, specifically, to serve as a consultant
rather than a classroom teacher. (R-2 at 2.)
The Board of Examiners acknowledged petitioner’s “extensive experience and
education” but stated “it was primarily geared towards special education instruction. The
Board finds that she would benefit from the coursework geared to the roles and
responsibilities of one serving in the role of consultant rather than instructor.” Id.
Conversely, the petitioner contends that her work experience consisting of seven
years as a special education teacher in Georgia, her current employment with the Toms
River School District and academic coursework substantiate that she fulfilled
responsibilities as a consultant, as well as a teacher for the past ten years and thus she

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
10
is qualified for the LDT-C endorsement. (Petitioner’s Appeal Petition.) In addition, since
the date of the Board of Examiners denial, she completed a class in psychological testing
which supplements her educational achievement list, collaborated with a licensed LDT-
C, and worked as an “interventionist to support the staff with the implementation of
modifications and accommodations” for the students. (Petitioner’s response to the
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.)
Petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that she is entitled to the certifications she seeks. Farrar v. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
EDU 13763-08, Initial Decision (April 27, 2010), aff’d, Comm’r (July 26, 2010),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. The Commissioner will “not disturb the
decision [of the Examiners] unless the appellant has demonstrated that the Board [of
Examiners] or the Commissioner acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or
contrary to law.” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1; Farrar, supra, EDU 13763-08 (citing Fisher v. State
Bd. of Exam’rs, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 58). Where there is room for two opinions, action
is not considered arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due
consideration, even though the court may believe that an erroneous conclusion has been
reached. Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Envt’l Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (App. Div. 1973). Petitioner
has not offered any additional evidence that was not considered by the Board, nor has
she alleged any facts establishing that the Board of Examiners clearly erred in denying
her application for the LDT-C endorsement after review of those documents. She simply
disagrees with the conclusion drawn by the Board of Examiners after exercising its
discretion. Hutchinson v. Bd. of Examiners, EDU 16373-12, 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 73,
*15.
A review of the Georgia and New Jersey job descriptions show similarities in
duties; however, the Georgia job description included more teacher related duties such
as “maintain[ing] lesson plans, compil[ing], maintain[ing] and submit[ing] accurate
paperwork within designated timelines, demonstrates prompt and regular attendance.”
(R-1.) Although the Georgia job description required petitioner to collaborate with general
education teachers and other staff, the Board of Examiners was not persuaded that
petitioner engaged in sufficient consultation duties. I must defer to the expertise of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
11
Board of Examiners absent a showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating
that the Board of Examiners’ decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and
that the petition of appeal must be dismissed. It is regrettable that petitioner was led to
believe that her application would be approved with just the submission of her transcripts,
however, the Board of Examiners is the entity authorized to issue or refuse to issue
certificates.2 N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-3.2(a).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that the State Board of Examiners’
denial of the petitioner’s LDT-C endorsement is AFFIRMED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
2 It is noted that petitioner is not precluded from re-applying for the LDT-C endorsement or requesting an
additional review by the Board of Examiners considering her additional experience working under the
emergency certificate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
12
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
February 23, 2023
DATE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KCB/am

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01695-22
13
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner
Kelly C. Umbach
Dana Weber
For respondent
Rani Singh
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
P-1 Letter of reference, dated December 17, 2021
P-2 Unofficial transcripts, from Walden University
P-3 Denial letter, dated August 24, 2021
For respondent
R-1 Credential Review Packet
R-2 State Board of Examiners’ Decision, dated December 16, 2021