The court held that,
for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was necessary to further, the military’s interests in maintaining morale, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.
A. for constitutionally discharging any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military required to first prove that the service member’s discharge significantly furthered, and was
B. to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was
C. in order to constitutionally discharge any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military was required to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
D. in order to discharge any service member constitutionally for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military will require to first prove that the service member’s discharge will significantly further, and will be
E. for constitutional discharge of any service member for aberrated orientation or conduct, the military would have required that it prove that the service member’s discharge would significantly further, and was
Can someone explain when to use "would" vs "was"? In many sentences, I feel like I can use "would" to substitute for "was" like in this example below. I know the answer is B but would it be right to say - "the military WOULD BE required to first prove that the service member's discharge would significantly further, and WOULD BE necessary to further.."