PER CURIAM: Plaintiff employer appeals from the ruling of the Board of Review granting unemployment compensation benefits to Ricardo Burnside, plaintiff's former employee. After a hearing conducted by telephone conference call, the administrative law Judge concluded that Burnside was not entitled to benefits. After careful consideration of the record and hearing transcript, the Board of Review reversed and held that Burnside's unexcused absence from work, which resulted in his discharge, did not disqualify him from benefits. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the findings of the Board are not supported by the evidence. The Board found that Burnside had called in his absences in advance, that any past tardiness or absences and warnings had not been documented, and that other employees were allowed to be absent without similar disciplinary action. In reviewing the Board's decision, we are bound by the established standard of review to uphold its factual findings if reasonably supported by evidence of any substance whatever. Utah Department of Administrative Services v. Public Service Commission, Utah, 658 P.2d 601, 609 (1983); Kennecott Copper Corp. Employees v. Department of Employment Security, 13 Utah 262, 264-65, 372 P.2d 987, 989 (1962). Accordingly, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Board's findings. Giving considerable deference to the Board's determination, we decline to reassess the weight of the evidence. The record before us sufficiently supports the determination that Burnside's absences did not constitute just cause for his discharge under U.C.A., 1953, § 35-4-5(b)(1) (Supp. 1985), as amended.