Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
bring his or her Tucker Act action in the Court of Federal Claims within six years of the date of discharge or retirement.”); Martinez, 333 F.3d at 1313 (“The cause of action in [the plaintiffs] Tucker Act suit was for the denial of money; that cause of action therefore accrued when he was separated from active duty and his monetary injury began.”); Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed.Cir.1995) (noting that the plaintiff, a retired Army officer, was entitled to basic pay under 37 U.S.C. § 204 prior to his retirement, and holding that if the plaintiffs “discharge was voluntary and improper, [his] statutory right to pay was not extinguished, and thus serves as a basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction”); see also Brownfield v. United States, 589 F.2d 1035, 1038-40 (Ct.Cl.1978) ; Coon v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. 531, 540
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding former wifes cause of action accrued at the time of former husbands failure to pay her the portion of his retirement benefits to which she was entitled which was no earlier than the date of his actual retirement
B. holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure
C. holding that retirement benefit increases due to postdivorce promotion were separate property
D. holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale
E. holding that the plaintiffs claim that he was wrongfully denied a promotion prior to his retirement accrued on the date that he was finally denied that promotion  the date of his retirement at the lower rank
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.