Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
NODs. Respondent’s Br. 16; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.109(b) (1990). Procedurally, however, the government’s main argument is that “AG in actuality challenges the June 1985 RO decision regarding the finality of the April 1983 RO decision,” Respondent’s Br. 10-11, and that AG can only challenge the 1985 decision through a CUE claim as a result of that decision’s finality. The government further states that “AG had an opportunity to directly appeal the June 1985 determination and argue the applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine ... but he did not do so and that decision also became final.” Id. at 11. Thus, according to the government, a challenge to the 1983 determination would instead have to be brought as a CUE claim. See Cook v. Pnncipi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) . The government is right that AG did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that pursuant to 38 usc  5109a a final ro decision may be revised upon a showing of cue
B. holding that a claim before an ro remains pending until a final decision is rendered
C. holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack
D. holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue
E. holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.