to maintain a satisfactory level of performance in the administration of his or her office may be subject to disciplinary action....” “[W]e presume that the agency’s decision is correct, and the burden to show otherwise is placed on the party challenging the decision.” Ringer v. Missouri Dept. of Health & Senior Services, 306 S.W.3d 113, 114 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). To sustain this burden, Melkowski must successfully challenge each basis for his termination found by the Board. See Indep. Living Ctr. of Mid MO, Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. Services, MO HealthNet Div., 391 S.W.3d 52, 58 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (appellant’s failure to challenge the alternative violations found by the agency is fatal to its appeal); City of Peculiar v. Hunt Martin Materials, LLC, 274 S.W.3d 588, 590-91 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (<HOLDING>); Houston v. Roadway Express, Inc., 133 S.W.3d
holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal