Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a § 3.203(a)-qualifying document, but also as to the consequences, under that regulatory interpretation, of failing to submit such a document prior to the RO’s decision to seek verification from ARPER-CEN. Indeed, in a scheme where VA’s initial inquiry to ARPERCEN carries such potentially outcome-determinative consequences, the duty to notify the claimant as to what evidence she may submit would be of even greater importance. Similarly, in the context of such an interpretation, or more so, if § 3.203(a) is not applicable here, VA’s failure to inform the appellant that she should “provide any additional personal data pertaining to her husband, such as any aliases he may have used during military service”, would also be a notice error . Cf. Sarmiento v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 80, 85 (1994) , overruled on other grounds by D’Amico v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a fax requesting employment information and verification did not convey information regarding a debt but also noting that the senders name and logo did not make explicit that the request was from a debt collector
B. holding that when claimant supplies new identifying information va must submit additional request to arpercen for verification of service
C. holding that a party must submit a proposed instruction to preserve an objection for appeal
D. holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery
E. holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.