Alberto Deleon v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 6/10/26 (#203-26)

203-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03629-26
Agency Dkt. No. 021-01-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Alberto Deleon,
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 and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that
petitioner’s claims must be dismissed pursuant to the 90-day rule because the petition was not
filed within 90 days of respondent’s decision to block his application for a School Social Worker
certificate. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i); Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993).
Moreover, petitioner has not offered any compelling reason that would warrant relaxation of the
90-day limitation period, and none can be gleaned from the record. 	Because the matter is
untimely, the Commissioner need not rule upon the merits of the dispute.1
1 However, the Commissioner notes for purposes of clarity that in reviewing the merits of the dispute,
the ALJ mistakenly applied the incorrect standard of review. It is important to recognize that a decision
by the Board of Examiners (Board) blocking an application for a certificate is not entitled to the arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable standard of review afforded to appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4. 	The
appropriate standard of review of Board decisions in matters filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is whether the

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified, is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 10, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 10, 2026
decision is consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. See Nimczyk v. Dep’t of Educ.,
State Bd. of Exam’rs, Commissioner Decision No. 98-22 (May 16, 2022) and Travisano v. Dept. of Educ.,
State Bd. of Exam’rs, Commissioner Decision No. 190-22 (August 8, 2022) (both comprehensively detailing
the appropriate standard of review to be applied in matters filed against the Board pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:3).
2 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
AGENCY DKT NO. 021-01-26
ALBERTO DELEON,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
Alberto Deleon, petitioner, pro se
Natalie K. Dennis, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Jennifer Davenport,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: 	April 13, 2026 	Decided: 	April 22, 2026
BEFORE BINDI MERCHANT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alberto Deleon, petitioner, who was convicted of burglary and petit theft and
subsequently Driving Under the Influence in 2002 in Florida, applied for a school social

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
2
worker certificate with the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE), Office of
Recruitment, 	Preparation 	and 	Certification 	(respondent). 	The 	respondent 	blocked
petitioner’s application upon review of his criminal background. Must Deleon be permitted
to receive a school social worker certificate by DOE? 	No. The DOE can block an
application based on criminal history for conduct unbecoming. 	N.J.S.A 18A:6-7.1 and
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 18, 2024, petitioner applied for a School Social Worker certificate with the
respondent.
On July 2, 2025, the Board of Examiners (Board) notified petitioner that they were
blocking his application. On August 28, 2025, petitioner contacted the Board to request
an appeal to which they responded that he would have to file an appeal with DOE, Office
of Controversies and Disputes (OCD). On January 28, 2026, petitioner filed an appeal
with OCD. On January 29, 2026, OCD acknowledged receipt of the petition. On February
27, 2026, in lieu of an answer, respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 2, 2026, the bureau transmitted this case to the Office of Administrative
Law as a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -
15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
On March 18, 2026, I held an initial pre--hearing conference and established a
briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2026, petitioner filed opposition.
On April 8, 2026, respondent filed a reply. Oral argument was heard on April 13, 2026,
and the record was closed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the documents submitted and oral arguments on the motion to dismiss,
I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
3
In 2002, petitioner was convicted of burglary and petit theft in Florida. He received
a sentence of four years’ probation and 50 hours of community service. 	Subsequently,
also in 2002, petitioner was convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and received
another sentence consisting of probation and community service.
On July 18, 2024, petitioner applied for a school social worker certification. Upon
reviewing the application, respondent requested additional information. On July 24, 2024,
petitioner provided a statement and supporting documentation.
On September 19, 2024, and May 22, 2025, the Board, at its meetings, reviewed
petitioner’s application. 	On May 22, 2025, the Board voted to block petitioner’s
application. 	On June 26, 2025, the Board voted to adopt its formal written decision to
block petitioner’s application. On July 2, 2025, the board sent petitioner a letter decision
to block petitioner’s application.
On August 28, 2025, petitioner reached out to the Board to appeal the decision.
That same day, the Board provided written instructions on how appeals are handled. The
Board provided a link and phone numbers to OCD so that petitioner could file his appeal.
On January 28, 2026, petitioner filed his appeal with the Commissioner.
Petitioner does not dispute his convictions but explained it was a mistake and has
not been arrested since 2002. He explained that he went back to school and completed
his associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in social work. He is a
licensed Social Worker in New Jersey and New York. 	Additionally, he is a Licensed
Clinical Alcohol and Drug Counselor in New Jersey and a certified Social Worker in New
York.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g), a party can file a motion to dismiss a petition instead
of filing an answer in a dispute concerning school laws. This regulation cited is analogous
to a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under R. 4:6-2(e). 	Under a R. 4:6-2(e) motion, the court is required to “search

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
4
the complaint in depth and with liberality [determine] whether the fundament of a cause
of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim.” Valantas v. Colgate-
Palmolive Co; 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988) quoting Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Mem’l Park,
43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957).
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) holds that petitions shall be filed “no later than the 90th day
from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the district
board of education.” 	The ninety-day limitation period “represents a fair and reasonably
necessary requirement for the proper and efficient resolution of disputes under the school
laws.” Kaprow v. Board of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993). It “provides
a 	measure 	of 	repose” 	and 	“gives 	school 	districts 	the 	security 	of 	knowing 	that
administrative decisions regarding the operation of the school cannot be challenged after
ninety days.” Ibid.
Courts strictly construe and consistently apply the 90-day limitation period.
Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588-89; Nissman v. Bd. of Educ., 272 N.J. Super 373, 380-81, (App.
Div. 1994); Riely v. Bd. of Educ., 173 N.J. Super. 109, 112-14, (App. Div. 1980). 	This
period begins to run when the petitioner "learns from the Local Board the existence of
that state of facts that would enable him to file a timely claim." Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588-
89. 	Indeed, the "notice of a final order, ruling or other action" is "sufficient to inform an
individual of some fact that he or she has a right to know and that the communicating
party has a duty to communicate." Id. at 587. Notably, a petitioner need not receive official
and formal notification that they may have a valid claim to begin the 90 days. Id. at 588.
Moreover, the ninety-day period starts when a petitioner is made aware of the facts to
permit them to file a timely complaint.
The purpose of the ninety-day limitation, as discussed in Kaprow, 131 N.J. 586-
87, is to stimulate litigants to pursue a right of action within a reasonable time so that the
opposing party may have a fair opportunity to defend, thus preventing the litigation of
stale claims.” 	Ochs v. Federal Ins. Co., 90 N.J. 108, 112, 447 A.2d 163 (1982). 	“The
second purpose is ‘to penalize dilatoriness and serve as a measure of repose’ by giving
security and stability to human affairs. 	Ibid. (quoting Farrell v. Votator Div., 62 N.J. 111,
115, 299 A.2d 394 (1973)).” Like this case, “when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
5
that he has a cause of action against an identifiable defendant and voluntarily sleeps on
his rights so long as to permit the customary period of limitations to expire, the pertinent
considerations of individual justice as well as the broader considerations of repose,
coincide to bar his action.” Farrell, supra, 62 N.J. at 115.
In this case, petitioner was provided with the Board’s decision on July 2, 2025.
Furthermore, on August 28, 2025, he received written instructions on how to file an appeal
with OCD. Petitioner states that the deadline should be relaxed since he is a pro se and
was not clearly guided through the appeal process. 	However, he was informed that
appeals are made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.4 on July 2, 2025, and then again by letter dated August 28, 2025.
Additionally, respondent seeks to dismiss the appeal for properly deciding to block
petitioner’s application based on his criminal history. 	The Board reviewed petitioner’s
explanation of rehabilitation after his convictions, however, the decision to block was
based on unbecoming conduct.
Under 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-4.1, 	“[n]notwithstanding 	that 	a 	candidate 	may 	meet
requirements for certification, the [Board] may refuse to issue a certificate to the candidate
if it determines, based on the record before it, that the candidate is not suitable for
employment as a teaching staff member in the public schools for reasons set forth at
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4. This refusal shall be known as a blocked application.” While conduct
unbecoming is not defined in the statutes or regulations, it has been described as an
“elastic” phrase that includes “conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency”
of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public respect for employees and
confidence in the operation of services.” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super 136, 140 (App. Div.
1960).
Here, petitioner’s crimes, for which he was convicted of, adversely affects the
morale or efficiency of a school district if he received a school social worker certificate
and become employed by a school district. 	Furthermore, there could be a tendency to
destroy confidence in public services if petitioner is awarded a certificate given his
deceptive acts.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
6
Additionally, the crime of burglary can be considered to be a per se unbecoming
conduct in and of itself because it an explicitly enumerated conviction under N.J.S.A.
18A:6-7.1 that prohibits public schools from employing any person with that conviction.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that petitioner filed his petition
in violation of the ninety-day statute of limitations under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	I further
CONCLUDE 	that 	the 	respondent’s 	decision 	to 	block 	petitioner’s 	application 	for
unbecoming conduct was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. 	Therefore, the
appeal must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer is GRANTED,
and the petition is DISMISSED.
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 on 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
7
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. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
April 22, 2026
DATE
BINDI MERCHANT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	________________________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	________________________________
ke

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03629-26
8
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner:
Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
For respondent:
Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition