With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". issued a new reconsideration decision once more denying the appellant’s request to pay the balance of her redeposit and interest by actuarial reduction. Terwilliger then filed a petition for review of the Board’s June 6, 2013 decision. In an August 20, 2014 decision, the Board denied the petition, finding no error by the administrative judge. The Board found that the payment of interest on a redeposit of retirement deductions is a statutory requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8334(d)(1). The Board also determined that, due to the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, it could not waive the requirement based on the fact that she had received faulty advice or on other equitable considerations. See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 422, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The Board also forwarded the petition for

A: holding that the board properly placed the burden of proving entitlement to benefits on the applicant
B: holding that the government cannot be forced to pay monetary benefits to an applicant who is statutorily ineligible for the benefits even if the applicant became ineligible due to reliance on the misadvice of a federal employee
C: holding that because the agency clearly knew of claimants ineligible status but continued to pay her food stamp benefits for eight years while the claimant had no way of knowing she was ineligible the agency was estopped from later attempting to recoup the paid benefits
D: holding that circuit court could assess attorneys fees against contemptuous employer for violating order to pay medical benefits but the fees would be separate and additional to the medical benefits awarded and not based on a percentage of those benefits but on the reasonable amounts incurred by employee in enforcing order
B.