of the administrative tribunal. Shank, 542 S.W.2d at 782. In contradiction of the testimony given by students and District officials, appellant firmly denied the allegations of abuse. However, “if evidence before the Board warranted either of two decisions, the Board’s decision is binding on judicial review, and it is irrelevant that there may be supportive evidence of an opposing view.” Kimble, 669 S.W.2d at 952. We hold that the record demonstrates competent and substantial evidence that appellant committed the acts with which he was charged. Appellant next argues that the policies he allegedly violated were merely descriptive or recommendatory and not mandatory. In support of this argument, appellant cites Carter County School Dist., R-1 v. Palmer, 582 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo.App.1979) (<HOLDING>). However, a Missouri court has determined that
holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run holding that neither the ada nor the rehabilitation act applies to prison employment holding that the statute teacher tenure act does not allow termination on the basis of a regulation which neither forbids nor commands action holding that the statute of limitations for an employment discrimination lawsuit by a college professor who did not receive tenure began when the college made the tenure decision and communicated that decision to the plaintiff holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment