Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a substantive cause of action through which Ms. Hillman could collect Mr. Hillman’s FEGLI proceeds. Second, as noted above, FEGLIA does not contain any anti-alienation or similar provision that precludes the imposition of a constructive trust upon FEGLI proceeds. Third, if Ms. Hillman were to be able to reach the FEGLI proceeds, her actions would not be in direct contravention of any “plain and precise” requirement or “clear prohibition” expressly provided for in FEGLIA. The Court thus finds that the Supreme Court of Virginia’s rationale in Dugan does not govern this case either. 3. FEGLIA Preemption of Foreign State Equitable Remedies While there is no binding authority with respect to FEGLIA preemption of Virginia law, there are a number of foreign state a 575, 579-80 (7th Cir. 1992) ; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the asserted right of the insureds child based on his agreement with his mother during their divorce to name the child as his fegli beneficiary was preempted by feglia
B. holding debtor could not discharge that portion of his monthly army retirement benefits awarded to his wife pursuant to a divorce decree
C. holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce
D. recognizing that a divorce decree which obligated the divorcing husband to name the children of his first marriage as the irrevocable beneficiaries of an insurance policy precluded him from naming his new wife as a beneficiary entitled to a portion of the insurance benefits
E. holding that feglia preempted a divorce decree that ordered the insured to designate his children as beneficiaries on his fegli policy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.