With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Ms. Watkins received preferential treatment. Indeed, nothing in the record demonstrates that Ms. Watkins received promotions or any other benefit for which she was not qualified resulting from Mr. Burton’s interactions with Ms. Watkins. Further, Ms. Montgomery offered no evidence to rebut Mr. Kaufman’s statement that Ms. Watkins received a higher level of training as part of a new office policy to remedy the office’s previous failure to adequately train new employees. In sum, Ms. Montgomery’s allegations are “vague, eonclusory or facially insufficient” as to any preferential treatment Mr. Burton afforded Ms. Watkins and fail to trigger the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a). See Johnston, 518 F.3d at 910; Dumas v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 789 F.2d 892, 894 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we also reject Ms. Montgomery’s

A: holding that each allegation of cue is separate and must be specifically considered by the board before the veterans court has jurisdiction
B: holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
C: holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue
D: holding that when presented with a mixed case of constructive removal and discrimination the board only has authority to decide the discrimination issue if the board has jurisdiction over the alleged constructive adverse action
C.