With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". overruled on other grounds by Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2006) (en banc). With respect to Ms. Montgomery’s allegations against Mr. Kaufman, Ms. Montgomery vacillated between characterizing Mr. Kaufman’s actions as violations of civil service hiring regulations and as routine conduct that is often “in the best interest of the government.” However, beyond her inconsistent statements, Ms. Montgomery has provided no additional evidence that any hiring regulations were violated. Without some evidence to support her allegations, Ms. Montgomery cannot be said to have made a non-frivolous allegation that Mr. Kaufman violated a law, rule, or regulation. See Dorrall, 301 F.3d at 1380; Hetman v. Dep’t of Justice, 193 F.3d 1375, 1380-81 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Turning to Ms. Montgomery’s allegations

A: holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
B: holding that the board lacked jurisdiction over employees ira because the employee did not provided any evidence whatsoever demonstrating a violation of a law rule or regulation
C: holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
D: holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code
B.