Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relied upon does not support a removal.” Id. To establish an affirmative defense of disability discrimination due to alcoholism, an appellant must show (1) “he suffers from an addiction,” and (2) “that the addiction caused the misconduct.” Avant v. Dep’t of the Navy, 60 M.S.P.R. 467, 476 (1994). The AJ determined. Mr. Wyrick did not provide any evidence regarding his alcohol addiction or any treatment and that, even if he had, mitigation due to alcoholism is “outweighed by the seriousness of the offenses in relation to [Mr. Wyrick’s] position, his prior disciplinary record, and the fact that there is no reason to conclude that [Mr. Wyrick’s] failure to be fully truthful was caused by his use of alcohol.” Resp’t’s App. 42; see Huettner v. Dep’t of the Army, 54 M.S.P.R. 472, 475 (1992) . “It is a well-established rule of civil
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a defense of alcoholism was outweighed by the seriousness of the offense and the appellants prior disciplinary record
B. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense
C. holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper
D. holding that courts must look to objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense
E. holding military judge did not err by considering appellants admissions concerning the elements of the lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault in determining appellant was guilty of the greater offense of attempted premeditated murder
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.