With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 97 (1976))). There is no indication, textual or otherwise, that Congress intended to treat constitutional claims differently than run-of-the-mill non-constitutional claims. This is particularly true in light of the counterpart provision governing claims by active duty officers. See 10 U.S.C. § 628. ■ While that provision also makes presentation to the Secretary a prerequisite for claims “based to any extent on the failure of-a person to be selected for promotion by a promotion board,” id. § 628(h), it specifically exempts claims that call into question “the validity of any law, regulation, or policy relating to selection boards,” id. § 628(i). That § 14502(g) does not contain a similar exemption simply confirms our initial conclusion. Cf. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d at 1175 (<HOLDING>). Second, Harkness has given us no good reason

A: holding that the industrial commission only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the payment of wages statute and not contract claims
B: holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction
C: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
D: holding that subject matter jurisdiction existed over similar constitutional claims solely on the basis of  628i
D.