Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have been submitted by the Board. We do not deem it unreasonable or contrary to Legislative intent for PERC to have concluded that the withholding was not based on an evaluation of the Principal’s performance. We agree with PERC’s observation that an arbitrator can determine whether the Principal’s inability to work warranted withholding his increment. Cf. N.J.S.A. 18A:30-2.1(a) & (b) (leave taken pursuant to work related injury constitutes satisfactory service for purposes of increment adjustment). In any event, in the present circumstances, the arbitrator should not be bound by PERC’s conclusion that the action was for disciplinary purposes in the ordinary sense of imposing discipline on the Principal. Cf. Scotch Plains-Fanwood Bd. of Educ., supra, 139 N.J. at 158, 651 A.2d 1018 . The arbitrator’s inquiry should focus on the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arbitrator was bound by perc determination that board acted for disciplinary reasons where board failed to appeal that determination
B. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board
C. holding that an appeal to an agency review board would be futile because the board lacked authority to invalidate ordinance as requested
D. holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause
E. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.