With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court in Irwin mandates that section 7703(b)(2) is subject to equitable tolling, that assumption alone does nothing to alter the decision we reached in Monzo. Though the obvious relationship between Title VII and section 7703(b)(2) may very well support the equitable tolling of section 7703(b)(2) in light of Irwin, section 7703(b)(1) in no way implicates 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(e) and its placement alongside section 7703(b)(2) in the Code is of no concern. There is simply no equivalent relationship between Title VII and section 7703(b)(1) such that Irwin might support the equitable tolling of the time period in section 7703(b)(1). That being said, we recognize that the applicability of Irwin expands beyond the Title VII context. See Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Brockamp, the Supreme

A: holding that equitable tolling is available to avoid time limitations in the statutory provisions governing veterans benefits
B: holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted
C: holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the veterans courts determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the case before it
D: holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations
A.