With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Board in making the decision whether to grant or deny the parole” — not to limit it, id. at 1360 (emphasis added). Where the Board exercises its discretion to depart from this numerical system, it may do so as long as it “specif[ies] in writing those factors which it used. Departures must be explained, but they are not proscribed.” Id. (emphasis added). As the McRae Court concluded, the Board need not render a decision based on a strict application of the system set forth in the 1987 Regulations. Rather, it must simply adhere to “the words of the governing statute, § 24-204(a), [and determine whether a prisoner is able to] live and remain at liberty without violating the law such that release would be compatible with the welfare of society.” Id. at 1361; see also id. at 1360-61 (<HOLDING>). The holding in McRae does not stand alone. In

A: holding that the parole regulations numerical system is not a rigid formula  because the board is not required to either grant or deny parole based upon the score attained
B: holding that in reviewing a uspc decision to deny parole on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus a federal court inquires into whether there is a rational basis in the record for the parole commissions conclusions embodied in its statement of reasons
C: holding the board is not required to either grant or deny parole based upon the score attained and it may ignore the results of the scoring system and either grant or deny parole in the individual case so long as it specifies the reasons in writing
D: holding that an important part of due process in the context of parole revocation is a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole
C.