With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 314, 324-25 (1995) (“To establish a breach of the settlement agreement based on [the] implied covenant of good faith with respect to the reinstatement term ... it is the appellant’s burden to show that the agency’s proven retaliatory/harassing actions, under the totality of the circumstances, amounted to an unjustified and substantial deprivation of [the appellant’s] rights as an incumbent of the position in question.”). Because the record shows that Moss made only mere allegations that the 14-day suspension violated the Agreement, but did not support his bare allegations with any evidence illustrating bad faith, we find no basis to conclude that the Initial Decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. See Charley v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 457 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Agreement does not insulate

A: holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious
B: holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable
C: recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
D: holding that the mere allegation of arbitrary and capricious action on defendants part absent a direct and pointed attack on the evidentiary basis of the agencys action is insufficient to warrant a judicial determination of wrongful agency action
D.