
    Roy E. WINE, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT AND RELIEF BOARD, Respondent.
    No. 94-AA-727.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Argued Oct. 3, 1995.
    Decided Oct. 24, 1995.
    
    Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr. and James Tag-lieri, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
    Sonia Bacchus, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with whom Garland Pinkston, Acting Corporation Counsel, Charles L. Reis-chel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Lutz Alexander Prager, Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for respondent.
    Before FERREN and KING, Associate Judges, and NEWMAN, Senior Judge.
    
      
       The decision in this case was originally issued as a Memorandum Opinion and Judgment on Octo-her 24, 1995, and is being published sua sponte upon the order of the court.
    
   NEWMAN, Senior Judge:

Wine argues that the decision of the Board ordering his involuntary retirement based on non-service related disability lacks the requisite evidentiary support. We affirm.

The proceedings of the Board are set forth in its brief; we incorporate the same herein. On this record, there is sufficient evidence to support the Board’s holding that there was not a full time light duty job petitioner was capable of performing. Thus, based on the teachings of Price v. Police & Firefighters Retirement and Relief Bd., 542 A.2d 1249 (D.C.1988), we must affirm.

Accordingly, the decision appealed from herein is hereby affirmed.

So ordered.  