Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“input” from the respondent which was lacking in Go-dette. Ms. Lea testified at some length by telephone, but the hearing committee did not credit what she had to say. Since the committee’s credibility findings were not clearly erroneous, the Board was bound to accept them. There is no room here for the Board to “speculate” that Ms. Lea’s evasion of service, like that of Mr. Godette, may have been motivated by “hopelessness and perhaps despair.” In addition to the evidence of evasion of service, the Board also failed to consider other evidence of Ms. Lea’s deliberate disregard for the disciplinary process. In particular, given that substantial evidence supported the committee’s credibility findings, the Board erred in failing to accept those findings. See Temple, 629 A.2d at 1208-1209 . The committee found that Ms. Lea’s testimony,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record
B. holding that as long as the findings are supported by substantial evidence the board must defer to the hearing committees credibility determinations because they are subsidiary findings of basic facts
C. holding that the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence
D. holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make
E. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.