Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
review is pending, there is “no good reason to hold the findings and sentence of the court-martial are impaired by the discharge.” United States v. Speller, 8 USCMA 363, 368, 24 CMR 173, 178, (1957). Similarly, the power of review authorities over the court-martial is unaffected by the administrative discharge. See United States v. Woods, 26 MJ 372 (CMA 1988); United States v. Jackson, 3 MJ 153 (CMA 1977); United States v. Entner, 15 USCMA 564, 36 CMR 62 (1965); United States v. Speller, supra; United States v. Sippel, 4 USCMA 50, 15 CMR 50 (1954). Moreover, the administrative discharge does not negate the responsibility of the convening authority to act on the findings and sentence; nor does it restrict his power to do so. See generally Speller, supra at 365-66, 24 CMR at 175-76 . As indicated earlier, the convening authority
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing cause of action
B. recognizing private right of action
C. holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23
D. recognizing validity of convening authoritys action where accused was released from active duty and transferred to reserves after courtmartial but before the convening authoritys action
E. recognizing the cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.