With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". September 12, 1986 Notice of appeal filed October 2, 1986 Case refiled January 27, 1987 Case dismissed February 19, 1987 Case refiled 2nd time Appellant argues that the state cannot use the savings clause again for their second refiling, February 19, 1987. Nothing in the statute, however, forbids it so long as it is accomplished within the six-month time frame triggered by the initial dismissal without prejudice. And so it was here. The state apparently elected to forego the appeal inasmuch as the time extension to refile was running and not tolled by the appeal, and there was danger that the A.R.S. § 13-107(F) time limits would run before adjudication of the appeal. See State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10, 583 P.2d 897 (1978). See also Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984), (<HOLDING>). The A.R.S. § 13-107(F) six-month extension to

A: holding that another complaint may be filed after conclusion of appeal if refiling is still allowable
B: holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect
C: holding that when an employee is not provided with notice of termination and appeal rights by an employing agency a dismissal based on untimeliness may be proper if the employee fails to act promptly and within the allowable time limits after he or she becomes aware of those rights
D: holding that an appeal is perfected when the appeal bond is filed
A.