In Brannigan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 887 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), the claimant refused to submit to the employer's drug and alcohol test and the record was replete with evidence that the claimant was aware of the drug and alcohol policy and consequences for refusing to submit to testing. In Brannigan the Court explained that "Section 402(e.1) of the Law requires an employer to demonstrate that it had adopted a substance abuse policy that was violated by the employee in order for that employee to be rendered ineligible for benefits." Brannigan, 887 A.2d at 843 (citing UGI Utilities). The Court affirmed the denial of benefits to the claimant, a nursing assistant, for his refusal to submit to a drug test pursuant to the employer's policy that allowed drug and alcohol testing of employees based on suspicion of impairment. The claimant reported to work smelling of alcohol and exhibiting abnormal behavior and refused an alcohol screening test. The policy provided that refusal to consent to testing would be reported to the employee's supervisor and to employee relations and that further disposition would be at the discretion of the department. The claimant argued that his refusal did not warrant discharge as he was unaware of the consequences, but the Board rejected the finding that the claimant was unaware of policy details. In affirming, the Court further observed: The Board made specific findings that: (1) Employer did in fact adopt a substance abuse policy; (2) such policy was violated by Claimant. In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate factfinder and is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. Findings made by the Board are conclusive and binding on appeal if the record, when examined as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings. Id., 887 A.2d at 843.