06-003424 Deeivory R. Clay vs. Brandford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, February 9, 2007.

Summary: The involuntary administrative withdrawal of Petitioner is ratified.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEEIVORY R. CLAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 3424

)

BRADFORD - UNION AREA VOCATIONAL )

TECHNICAL CENTER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORD ER

Upon due notice, a disputed - fact hearing was held in this

case on November 13, 2006, in Starke, Florida, before Ella Jane

P. Davis, a duly - assigned Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: DeeI vory Clay, pro se

405 East Market Road

Starke, Florida 32091

For Respondent: Lisa J. Augspurger, Esquire

Bush, Augspurger & Lynch, P.A.

4ll East Jackson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

John Cooper, Esquire

Coop er & Adanec

100 West Call Street

Starke, Florida 32091

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner was properly "administratively

withdrawn" from the Bradford - Union Area Vocational Technical

Center, pursuant to the termination letter issued Fe bruary 22,

2006.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case was referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) on or about September 13, 2006, pursuant to a

Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, contract between the School

Board of Bradford County and DOAH a nd the "Stipulation to Submit

Plaintiff's Complaint to the Division of Administrative

Hearings" entered in Case No. 06 - CA - 0212, of the Circuit Court

of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Bradford County,

Florida.

On September 20, 2006, Petitioner's lawyer filed a Motion

to Withdraw. On September 28, 2006, a Notice of Hearing for

November 2, 2006, and an Order of Pre - hearing Instructions were

entered. On October 5, 2006, an Order Permitting Withdrawal of

Counsel was entered. On October 11, 2006, a Joint Motion to

Place Matter in Abeyance was filed. On October 13, 2006, an

Order Granting Continuance and Re - scheduling Hearing was

entered. Thereby, the final disputed - fact hearing was moved to

November 13, 2006, so that the parties would have addition al

time for the purposes outlined in the Joint Motion for Abeyance,

yet Petitioner's request for an early Recommended Order could be

met.

The case was not settled, and the final disputed - fact

hearing went forward on November 13, 2006.

At the commencemen t of the disputed - fact hearing, the

parties stipulated that this case is bounded by the four corners

of the February 22, 2006, Administrative Withdrawal Letter,

a/k/a "the termination letter," which reads, in pertinent part,

as follows:

. . . effective imm ediately you will be

discontinued from the LPN class. This

termination is due to violation of the

student handbook, Section V - E (3)(pages 21 -

22). In essence, you avoided a discussion

with faculty concerning inappropriate

behavior, leaving class, not maki ng up

tests, and attendance.

The student handbook states, that during

probation, no inappropriate behavior will be

accepted.

This action will not exclude you from

applying for next year's program as an LPN

Student.

The parties also stipulated to cert ain facts and

conclusions of law which have been adopted as indicated infra .

Respondent, as the party seeking to change the status quo ,

(e.g. Respondent administratively withdrew Petitioner over her

protest), bears the duty to go forward and the burden of proof

by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, Respondent

presented its case first. Respondent presented the oral

testimony of Clarence DeSue; Brenda Trogden, ARNP; Wineford

Major, RN; and Joanne Bracewell, LPN, ARNP. Respondent had

Exhibits 2B , 3A - C, 4A - D, 5, 6A - H, 7A - C, 8A - B, 9, and 10 admitted

in evidence. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Shirley

Douglas and testified on her own behalf. Petitioner had five

exhibits admitted in evidence. Joint Exhibit One, a copy of

Bradford Count y School Board Rule 2.06, was also admitted in

evidence.

On November 29, 2006, the Transcript of the "AM" session of

the November 13, 2006, final disputed - fact hearing was filed.

On December 27, 2006, Volumes I and II of the "PM" session of

the November 13, 2006, final disputed - fact hearing were filed.

Respondent timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order and

Requests for Official Recognition of Section 120.54 and Section

1001.44, Florida Statutes. Those Requests have not been timely

objected to and are granted.

Petitioner has filed no proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Bradford - Union Area Vocational Technical

Center (B - UAVTC), is located in Bradford County, Florida, and is

operated, pursuant to Section 1001.44, Florida Sta tutes, by the

Bradford County School Board.

2. The Bradford County School Board has adopted rules

contained in its "Policy Manual," pursuant to Sections

120.536(1), 120.54, and 1001.42(22), Florida Statutes. Included

in these rules is Rule 5.10(4), whic h reads, in pertinent part:

The code of conduct for elementary,

secondary and post - secondary schools are

hereby incorporated by reference and made a

part of this Rule.

3. The "2005 - 2006 General Catalog of the Bradford - Union

Area Vocational Technical C enter" (hereafter referred - to as “the

General Catalog”) constructively contains Respondent's "Code of

Conduct."

4. The General Catalog (Exhibit R - 10) provides, at page

10, that “Profanity and rudeness will not be tolerated.”

5. There are rules within the General Catalog requiring

timely attendance in all classes, including the following:

DRESS CODE/RULES OF CONDUCT

Students are expected to dress appropriately

for the occupation in which they are

training. (Page 10.)

6. There are rules within the G eneral Catalog concerning

calculation of absences and tardies, including the following:

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DAY CLASSES

Good attendance is an important key to

success in the job world. The same is true

of the classroom. Attendance policies are

intende d to promote realistic experiences in

good attendance habits. These are the

minimum requirements for all programs.

Attendance policies may be more stringent in

some programs.

Tardies

1. Students entering class after the tardy

bell has rung will be mark ed tardy. Three

tardies equal one absence.

2. After three tardies, a discipline

referral may be issued.

Absences

The Attendance Policy is monitored by nine

week grading periods. The following

policies apply to full - time and part - time

adult students:

First Nine Weeks August 8 - October 7

Second Nine Weeks October 10 - December 16

Third Nine Weeks January 4 - March 10

Fourth Nine Weeks March 13 - May 24

Students registered for day classes Monday

through Friday (five days a week) will be

allowed up to f ive absences in any one nine

week grading period. On the sixth absence,

the student will be withdrawn.

Students registered for day or night classes

less than 10 hours a week will be allowed up

to two absences in any one nine week grading

period. On the third absence, he student

will be withdrawn. (Pg. 13).

* * *

7. The concept of "administrative withdrawal" is also set

out in the General Catalog as follows:

Administrative Withdrawal

Adult students may be withdrawn immediately

by the administration f or the following

reasons:

Discipline referral.

Behavior or act that endangers students,

staff, and/or faculty, or other

inappropriate actions as determined by the

administration.

The student may not reapply for admission

until the beginning of the next semester

upon approval of the Director. (Pg. 14).

8. Respondent B - UAVTC operates its Licensed Practical

Nurse (LPN) Program, pursuant to the foregoing rules and

policies, and pursuant to a "Student Handbook" (hereafter

referred to as the "LPN Student Handbook.")

9. The LPN Student Handbook provides:

V. STUDENT PROGRESS

C. Clinical Performance

Progress in the clinical areas will be

evaluated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory,

with frequent counseling in areas which need

strengthening. At the en d of each clinical

rotation the instructor will complete a

performance evaluation and discuss this with

the student. . . . (Pg. 20 - 21)

10. The LPN Student Handbook provides:

V. STUDENT PROGRESS

* * *

E. TERMINATION BY "DUE PROCESS"

* * *

3. Probation - if there is no

improvement it may be necessary to discuss

the problem with the Director and to place

the student on probation for a period of two

to four weeks. During that time,

satisfactory performance must be maintained

(i.e. no absenc e, tardiness, test failure or

inappropriate behavior will be accepted.)

4. Termination:

a. If at the end of the period

of probation there is little or no

improvement, the student will be allowed to

resign by "due process, " or remain in

attendance without credit. The school

reserves the right to ask a student to

withdraw from the program for any of the

following reasons.

1) Unsatisfactory academic

or clinical performance.

2) Unsatisfactor y

demonstration of the expected effective

behavior.

3) Ethical and/or social

misdemeanor.

4) Violation of the

attendance policy.

5) Violation of school

policies.

6) Violation of Student

Tr aining Agreement.

* * *

c. Dismissal - a student may be

asked to withdraw immediately if there is

sufficient cause. (Pg. 21 - 22).

11. With regard to attendance, the LPN Student

Handbook provides, in pertinent part:

II. ATTENDANCE

C. Policy

1. Attendance - regular attendance

is necessary for the student to take full

advantage of available educational

opportunities. All students shall be

counted in attendance when they are:

a. Present in assigned

class(es).

b. Participating in a school -

sponsored function on or off campus.

c. On an educational field

trip. (Pg. 11).

12. The LPN Student Handbook also provides a

list of acceptable excuses for an absence, inclu ding

an emergency in the immediate family, a subpoena by

any law enforcement agency, and other justifiable

reasons approved by the principal or designee upon

prior request. (Exhibit 3A pages 11 - 12).

13. The LPN Student Handbook provides:

VIII.

F. PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND GROOMING

Jewelry

. . . one small pair of stud

earrings is allowed. . . . (Pg. 26 - 27).

14. Clarence DeSue was the Director of B - UAVTC at all

times material.

15. Petitioner was accepted into the LPN progr am of the B -

UAVTC on May 11, 2005 (Stipulated Fact).

16. Petitioner began classes in the LPN nursing program at

B - UAVTC on or about August 8, 2005. (Stipulated Fact.)

17. On August 8, 2005, Petitioner signed a Student

Training Agreement, stating that she had read and understood the

rules, regulations, and standards discussed in the LPN Student

Handbook; that she would adhere to the attendance policy as

written for the practical nursing student; and that if she

violated the agreement her continuation in the LPN Program would

be in jeopardy. (R - 3B).

18. In August 2005, after commencement of the first

semester, Petitioner twice parked in a faculty lot that had

easier access to her regular classrooms than did the student

lot. The administrative employee who requested, on both

occasions, that Petitioner remove her car perceived Petitioner's

response, behavior, and demeanor as "rude." When Mr. DeSue made

a blanket announcement that all student vehicles should be

removed from that lot, Petitioner did, in f act, remove her car.

19. The administrative employee involved requested and

advised that Mr. DeSue write - up Petitioner for her rude

response, behavior, and demeanor. Over the objections of the

other administrator, who urged that Petitioner's rudeness s hould

be addressed, Mr. DeSue did not address the issue with

Petitioner at that time.

20. Mr. DeSue testified that whenever he had to deal with

Petitioner at any time during her enrollment at B - UAVTC in 2005 -

2006, Petitioner’s demeanor was always critic al of the LPN

program, negative towards teachers, filled with allegations of

inequalities within the classroom situation, and permeated with

the belief that everyone was against her.

21. In August 2005, a wound nurse at one of the clinical

sites alleged to LPN Program Director Brenda Trogden that

Petitioner had attempted to direct a Resident M.D. on how to

dress a wound. Such behavior, if it occurred, would have been

inappropriate and insubordinate. However, Petitioner denied the

incident, and the issue apparently was never resolved.

22. In September 2005, Petitioner was habitually arriving

in the LPN classroom on time, but then leaving to return to her

car to move it and retrieve her books. Therefore, on several

occasions, Petitioner was, in fact, not ready to learn/work in

class for up to 20 - 30 minutes after the class had commenced.

Petitioner presented a doctor's note for one absence and a

subpoena for another absence, but she was considered excessively

tardy (seven tardies in four weeks) on the oth er occasions. On

September 14, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Trogden and

given a written warning due to her tardiness and absenteeism.

23. On September 19, 2005, Petitioner signed an

"Expectations of Nursing" document, (Exhibit R - 3C), which

advis ed her of the administration's position concerning

absenteeism, tardiness, cheating, and other issues. Among these

“expectations” were the following:

3. I will attend all class sessions and be

on time unless there is a good reason not to

do so.

4. I wi ll satisfy the course requirements

and not expect to be relieved of the

obligation to [do] so due to non - emergency

commitments.

***

6. I will treat other people with respect

even when I disagree with their positions.

ANY STUDENT MISSING 31 OR MORE CLINICAL OR 19 OR MORE

LECTURE HOURS WILL BE PLACED ON ACADEMIC PROBATION.

24. Although Petitioner signed the foregoing document, she

noted that she agreed with Item Eight, the ban on cheating, but

questioned some of the othe r policies.

25. On September 23, 2005, another LPN student requested

that Petitioner stop flipping pages in her notebook during a

classroom lecture, because Petitioner was distracting others

from the instructor, Msogden. Petitioner refused to move

he r seat in compliance with Msogden's request, and

Ms. Trogden had to re - assign all seats alphabetically as a

result of Petitioner's refusal to remove herself to a seat

further away from the complaining student.

26. A blanket amnesty to all students, in cluding

Petitioner, with regard to certain tardies and absences helped

Petitioner as of October 3, 2005.

27. On October 12, 2005, another LPN student reported to

Msogden and to Mr. DeSue that Petitioner had hit her in the

back with a deliberate elbow punch while they were in a clinical

setting at a nursing home. Petitioner denied any intentional

touching of, or animosity toward, the other student.

Petitioner's explanation was that, at most, she had grazed the

other student with her clipboard upon ent ering a patient's room.

Ms. Trogden had investigated the incident within two hours of

its occurrence the previous day. At that time, Ms. Trogden had

observed the accuser's back, which evidenced a red area between

the accuser's shoulder blade and her spin e. Msogden later

reviewed a doctor's note concerning the injury. Msogden

concluded, within her nursing expertise, that the bruise on the

victim's back was inconsistent with a brush by a clipboard. She

further concluded that the bruise was consis tent with a

mechanism of injury by forceful contact with an elbow. However,

neither the victim nor two other students present at the time of

the assault could state with certainty that Petitioner had

struck the blow because they had not seen the blow stru ck and

because they had only seen Petitioner in the near vicinity.

Ms. Trogden concluded that Petitioner's explanation that she had

unintentionally or inadvertently touched someone with her

clipboard at a minimum demonstrated poor body mechanics for a

nur se, but also concluded that a deliberate touching by

Petitioner had not been proven.

28. On October 13, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by

Ms. Trogden and LPN Nursing Program Coordinator Joanne

Bracewell, LPN, ARNP, concerning absences and tardies,

inappro priate parking, and Petitioner's inappropriate behavior

when requested to move her seat on September 23, 2005.

29. Petitioner was evaluated by Ms. Bracewell on

October 14, 2005. Therein, Petitioner was cited as setting

forth unsatisfactory performance an d conduct for the following

reasons, among others: poor eye contact and communication

skills; assisting a confused patient in the shower without

getting additional help; lack of teamwork; and illegible

handwriting. These were all patient safety deficits.

30. With Mr. DeSue's concurrence, Petitioner was placed on

her first probation from October 14, 2005, through December 16,

2005, (approximately nine weeks).

31. Petitioner viewed this first nine weeks' probationary

period as placing her under ever - clo ser scrutiny and as

harassing her. At hearing, Petitioner raised the concept that,

according to the LPN Student Handbook, probations were supposed

to be no more than four weeks in duration. Petitioner is quite

right that only a two - to - four weeks probatio n period is provided

for in the LPN Student Handbook. ( See Finding of Fact 10.)

However, it appears that this extended probation for Petitioner

was intended to be to her advantage. If Petitioner had been re -

evaluated on October 28 (after two weeks) or o n November 17,

2005, (after four weeks) she still would not have been meeting

expectations and would have been subject to termination from the

LPN program. Instead, Petitioner was given the entire remainder

of the first semester in which to improve her pe rformance.

32. Petitioner also was able to make up missed clinicals

before the end of the first semester. This was before the end

of the second nine weeks' grading period and during her lengthy

first probationary period. Although she had not made up al l the

academic hours by the end of the first semester, Petitioner was

making a "B" academically and could have completed the required

academic hours for LPN licensure if she had managed perfect

attendance in the second semester. Therefore, Petitioner's

fi rst probation ended with relative success on December 16,

2005.

33. Although Mr. DeSue testified that Petitioner was

placed on probation again from January 16, 2006, through

February 1, 2006, the remainder of the record does not support

these dates as da tes of Petitioner's second probation. Rather,

the four days of clinical observation of Petitioner by Wineford

Major, RN, as described, infra , occurred within this time span.

34. An evaluation of Petitioner's clinical competency,

dated February 2, 2006 , by LPN program instructor Wineford

Major, RN, again revealed unsatisfactory performance.

(Stipulated Fact.)

35. Among deficiencies in Petitioner's clinical skills

observed by Ms. Major, and recorded contemporaneously on the

competency check - off list, were deficient communication skills

with fellow students, doctors, and patients; excessive record

review; deficient knowledge of decubitus ulcers; deficient

knowledge of laboratory tests and results; deficient

observational skills; and insecurity in the ad ministration of

medicines. This evaluation was one of the reasons Petitioner

was placed on her second probation from February 2, 2006, to

March 3, 2006.

36. Ms. Major was very concerned because Petitioner, an

LPN student in her second semester, should h ave mastered several

skills and knowledge areas that Petitioner had not have

mastered. While conceding that Petitioner could recite the "six

rights" of nursing, Ms. Major did not feel Petitioner was

translating nursing theory into nursing performance, eit her

appropriately or speedily enough during the clinicals she had

observed. Ms. Major believed Petitioner's lack of proficiency

signaled patient safety issues.

37. The ability to administer medications appropriately is

an essential part of the LPN Progr am because it is such a large

part of the duties a nurse will perform upon graduation and

licensure.

38. Ms. Major had also learned that one of the nurses

employed by the clinical site had reported to her superiors that

she was uncomfortable in allowing P etitioner to pass medications

due to Petitioner's affect and clinical deficiencies.

39. Petitioner was placed on her second probation from

February 2, 2006, through March 3, 2006 (four weeks), in part as

a result of Ms. Major's assessment of Petitioner' s nursing

skills. However, this second probation was also based on a

conference which included Petitioner, Major, Trogden, and

Bracewell, during which conference Petitioner's instructors

attempted to counsel Petitioner concerning her deficits and to

sugge st to Petitioner that probation was an opportunity for her

to improve and gain confidence. Petitioner did not wish to hear

their criticisms and counseling, and abruptly walked out of that

conference without permission. In a hospital setting,

Petitioner's abrupt exit and treatment of superior nurses

probably would have resulted in termination of her employment

for insubordination.

40. On February 3, 2006, Petitioner told Mr. DeSue that

Ms. Major believed, and had told Petitioner that, Petitioner had

a clear slate or mastery with regard to the required

competencies raised on her clincals. Mr. DeSue's investigation

at the time, and Ms. Major's emphatic testimony at hearing

established persuasively that Ms. Major made no such statement.

Mr. DeSue and Ms. Major considered Petitioner's February 3,

2006, statement to Mr. DeSue to be a untruth, as opposed to a

misunderstanding.

41. Being truthful in the LPN Program in preparation for

being a nurse one day is an essential part of the LPN Program.

42. Havin g good communication skills, as observed and

practiced in the LPN Program in preparation for being a nurse

one day, is an essential part of the LPN Program.

43. The counseling memorandum for February 3, 2006, the

day Petitioner was again placed on probat ion, included, among

other statements, that Petitioner still had communication and

collaboration issues with peers, faculty, agency staff, and

patients; lacked foundational nursing knowledge; was practicing

unsafe nursing interventions; listed a number of safety issues;

and stated that Petitioner "does not demonstrate knowledge of

ethical responsibilities." Petitioner was warned orally and in

writing that a third probation would result in termination.

44. On or about February 15, 2006, Ms. Bracewell reque sted

that Petitioner remove her earrings, which were about four

inches long and dangled to Petitioner's clavicle, because they

were unsafe to wear while an EKG practice was in progress. Due

to Petitioner's defensiveness with Ms. Bracewell at that time

and due to Petitioner's immediate complaint about the earring

ban to Mr. DeSue, Ms. Bracewell measured earrings on all her

other students and discovered three other students wearing

earrings measuring one and one - half inches long. Their earrings

and Petition er's earrings violated the LPN Handbook's jewelry

code. ( See Finding of Fact 13.) Ms. Bracewell requested of

them, as she had of Petitioner, that they also remove their

earrings. The other students presented no earring problems.

45. On February 16, 20 06, Ms. Bracewell asked to speak to

Petitioner in private concerning the prior incidents, but

particularly the earring incident. Petitioner refused, in front

of the entire class, to meet privately with Ms. Bracewell. As a

result, Ms. Bracewell told Petit ioner that Petitioner could not

take the examination that was about to be given until she had

spoken privately with Ms. Bracewell. Petitioner then left the

classroom without speaking to Ms. Bracewell privately. When

Petitioner returned to the classroom a fter the examination, she

acknowledged that she was the clean - up team leader appointed for

the day but refused Ms. Bracewell's order to clean - up the room.

Again, Petitioner's refusal of a direct order was made in front

of other students.

46. On February 20, 2006, clincials at North Florida State

Hospital ended before the usual time, and Petitioner was asked

to attend a meeting at a Burger King nearby. The meeting was to

include Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, Trogden, and DeSue. The

purpose of the meetin g was to address Petitioner's current

deficiencies in the LPN Program. The Burger King location was

selected by B - UAVTC personnel for the convenience of all

concerned and to fit into the remaining extra time at the end of

the clinicals.

47. Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, and Trogden met at the

Burger King. Petitioner had not received much notice of the

meeting, and became belligerent while awaiting Mr. DeSue's

arrival. Petitioner demanded to have her representative present

at this counseling session an d her request was denied.

Ultimately, Petitioner refused to remain for the conference,

stating that her child had been taken to a hospital by her

mother due to the child's asthma attack.

48. Petitioner's mother testified that Petitioner's

daughter was a severe asthmatic whom she frequently took to the

hospital, but no specific date for trips to the hospital were

elicited from her. Assuming arguendo that her testimony was

meant to include a trip to the hospital on February 20, 2006,

Petitioner still off ered no medical excuse for February 20,

2006.

49. Petitioner's testimony that she requested to

reschedule the February 20, 2006, meeting is not credible in

light of the evidence as a whole.

50. Failure to attend the February 20, 2006, meeting as

request ed by all three of her instructors and the B - UVATC

Director was inappropriate and insubordinate under the

circumstances.

51. Petitioner's attitude on February 20, 2006, was

perceived as rude by those in attendance.

52. Ms. Bracewell recommended that P etitioner be

administratively withdrawn because Petitioner was not performing

satisfactorily during her second probation and because of

Petitioner's rudeness. Msogden and Mr. DeSue concurred with

Ms. Bracewell. Ms. Major was not contemporaneously mad e aware

of this recommendation, but she testified that if she had known

of the recommendation, she would have concurred in it, based on

her recent clinical observations of Petitioner and Petitioner's

walking out of the February 3, 2006, counseling session. ( See

Findings of Fact 34 - 43.)

53. On February 22, 2006, Mr. DeSue wrote Petitioner,

advising her that she was being administratively withdrawn, as

follows:

. . . effective immediately you will be

discontinued from the LPN class. This

termination is d ue to violation of the

student handbook, Section V - E (3)(page 21 -

22). In essence, you avoided a discussion

with faculty concerning inappropriate

behavior, leaving class, not making up

tests, and attendance.

The Student Handbook states, that

during p robation, no inappropriate behavior

will be accepted.

This action will not exclude you from

applying for next year's program as an LPN

Student.

54. All three of Petitioner’s instructors (Bracewell,

Trogden, and Major) described Petitioner as cons istently not

making eye contact and being unreceptive and hostile to their

suggestions and counseling. Her affect was defensive at most

times.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

55. DOAH has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to the

parties’ stipulation, and Sub - sectio ns 120.57(1) and 120.68,

Florida Statutes.

56. Findings of Fact 1 - 13 are adopted and incorporated

herein as Conclusions of Law.

57. It is Respondent's position that while on probation,

no absence, tardiness, test failure, or inappropriate behavior

will be accepted. See LPN Student Handbook V.E.3., specifically

providing that "[d]uring probation, satisfactory performance

must be maintained (i.e. no absence, tardiness, test failure, or

inappropriate behavior will be accepted)." ( See Finding of Fact

10.) Petitioner's refusal to remain for counseling on

February 16, 2006 and on February 20, 2006, with regard to her

deficiencies in the current probationary period constituted

absence and/or inappropriate behavior, under the circumstances.

Moreover, her clin ical deficiencies equate with a test failure,

and her behavior on February 15, and 16, 2006, was also

inappropriate.

58. Respondent has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that it was entitled to administratively withdraw

Petitioner from B - UAVTC on February 22, 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Bradford County enter

a final order ratifying the February 22, 2006, administrative

withdrawal letter.

DONE A ND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, F lorida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 9th day of February, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED:

DeeIvory Clay

405 East Market Road

Sta rke, Florida 32091

Lisa J. Augspurger, Esquire

Bush, Augspurger & Lynch, P.A.

4ll East Jackson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

John Cooper, Esquire

Cooper & Adanec

100 West Call Street

Starke, Florida 32091

Mr. H.M. Hatcher, III, Superintendent

Bradfor d County School Board

501 East Market Street

Starke, Florida 32091

Clarence DeSue, Director

Bradford Union Area

Vocational - Technical Center

609 North Orange Street

Starke, Florida 32091

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the ri ght to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.