Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a veteran-friendly procedure that would enable accrued-benefits beneficiaries to more readily substitute, and that a more restrictive procedure for requesting substitution may thwart Congress’s objectives in enacting section 5121 A. Nevertheless, although the Secretary notified Mrs. Reliford that she could waive the right to submit additional evidence, he did not notify her that she could waive substitution, in contravention of his policy. Thus, the Court holds that the Board erred by failing to follow the Secretary’s own established procedures. See Morton, supra. The Court is cognizant of its statutory duty to take due account of the rule of prejudicial error. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) (requiring the Court to “take due account of the rule of prejudicial error”); Shinseki v. 06 (2005) . These matters are to be provided expeditious
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest
B. holding that the existence of our jurisdiction turns on whether the claim was reasonably raised to the board and remanding for determination of whether the claim was reasonably raised when there was an evidentiary factual basis therefor
C. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
D. holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability
E. holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the board had erred in finding that certain picketing was lawful because no party had raised the issue to the board either during the initial proceedings or on motion for reconsideration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.