With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Board’s decision. She states that the text of Section 402(b) of the Law does not mention marital status of a claimant, and Section 1704 of the Marriage Law does not apply because Procito and her partner are not seeking recognition of a marriage. After restating equal protection and due process arguments, she contends that the Board made no alternate holding, when in fact the Board did determine that Procito failed to prove that she quit due to a necessitous and compelling cause. She asserts, as well, that the Court should conclude that any arguments concerning the adequacy of the reasons for Procito’s partner's relocation were waived by virtue of the employer’s failure to raise the issue. She cites Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 496 Pa. 113, 436 A.2d 179 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Procito’s argument lacks merit as it is her

A: holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived
B: holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
C: holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
D: holding that an employers theory of termination for willful misconduct rather than voluntary quit raised for the first time before the commonwealth court was waived
D.