With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.2000). This court recently decided a similar case, the facts of which are closely analogous to the case at bar. In Zimbelman, two employees were fired from their jobs with the Air Force under suspicion of having committed various acts of misconduct, including theft and fraud. See Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 369. The employees brought suit against their supervisors and the Air Force investigators who had conducted the investigation into their misconduct, asserting several constitutional claims, including one under Bivens for a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to preserve their reputations. See id. at 370. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claims, concluding that they “indisputably ar[o]se from a federal e 959, 961 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th

A: holding csra controlled plaintiffs claims which arose as result of employment relationship
B: holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment
C: holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy
D: holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated
D.