Unlike Craig, the record here is replete with inconsistencies, principal among them being petitioner's own testimony. As the evaluation reports were based on petitioner's statements and conduct in counseling, it was reasonable for the hearing officer to doubt the reliability of those evaluations. Petitioner did not raise this issue before the hearing officer or in the trial court. Issues not raised before an agency will not be considered for the first time on administrative review. This rule applies to constitutional issues despite an agency's inability to decide constitutional objections.
Administrative review is limited to proofs placed before the agency.
182 Ill. 2d at 278-79. Petitioner next argues that the hearing officer improperly rejected expert testimony about inherited alcohol tolerance. Petitioner claims that Gill's unrebutted and unimpeached expert testimony was dispositive on the issue of petitioner's inherited high tolerance to alcohol. Petitioner concludes that the hearing officer's refusal to accept the testimony and instead conclude that defendant was a heavier drinker than he claimed was improper and imposed an arbitrary evidentiary standard. The record shows that the hearing officer accepted the possibility that a person's tolerance to alcohol could be inherited.