Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provisions of the statute condition the protection offered on a showing that military service adversely affected the ability to assert or protect a legal right, Congress’s omission of any such requirement in this section was deliberate). ii Application of Section 526 There is no dispute, and the Court so holds, that the appellant’s period of military service on active duty in the U.S. Army from May 16, 2011, to June 29, 2012, satisfies the SCRA’s definition of “military service.” 50 U.S.C. app. § 511(2). Thus, applying section 526 to the facts of this case, the Court holds the appellant’s time to file an NOA from the Board’s October 25, 2011, decision was tolled until June 29, 2012, the date he was released from active duty. See Diamond v. United States, 344 F.2d 703, 707 (Ct.C1.1965) . Accordingly, the appellant had 120 days from
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution
B. holding the timeliness provision in the habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling
C. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise
D. holding that a release of unknown claims has no effect in the absence of evidence apart from the words of the release
E. holding that tolling under similar provision in the soldiers and sailors civil relief act ended upon release from active duty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.