DECISION
PER CURIAM:
T1 Sharon L. Pender seeks judicial review of the Workforce Board of Appealss (Board) November 3, 2010 decision. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We affirm.
[ 2 Pender challenges the Boards decision adopting the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) factual finding that she unlawfully took funds from her employer. We construe this as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The Board affirmed the ALJs decision after determining that the ALJ was in the best position to consider conflicting testimony and resolve credibility issues between the parties. The Board also determined that if there is evidence in the record to support a credibility finding made by the ALJ, the Board will not substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ unless there is a showing of clear error.
13 An agencys findings of fact are accorded substantial deference and will not be overturned if based on substantial evidence, even if another conclusion from the evidence is permissible. See Hurley v. Board of Review of Indus. Commn, 767 P.2d 524, 526-27 (Utah 1988). This court will defer to the factual findings of the ALJ when there is conflicting evidence as the ALJ is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses. See Albertsons, Inc. v. Department of Empt See., 854 P.2d 570, 575 (Utah Ct.App.1993). We will not disturb the Boards application of law to its factual findings unless its determination exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality. See Johnson v. Department of Empt Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct.App.1989).
T4 The record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJs determination that Pender unlawfully took money from her employer. Based on this substantial evidence, and the ALJs ability to best assess conflicting evidence, we cannot say that the Board erred in adopting the ALJs factual determinations and affirming the ALJs decision.
{5 Accordingly, the Boards decision is affirmed.