DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE:  September 23, 2025
CBCA 8102
PATRICK CONSIDINE,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Patrick Considine, pro se, Dublin, Ireland.
Rachel B. Cochran, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, CHADWICK, and NEWSOM.
NEWSOM, Board Judge.
For the reasons stated below, the Board sua sponte dismisses this appeal for failure
to prosecute.
Background
The Board docketed this appeal on May 14, 2024, and subsequently issued orders
setting due dates for initial filings.  The parties jointly proposed a schedule, and on
November 4, 2024, the Board issued a scheduling order establishing the due dates to which
both parties had agreed.


CBCA 8102 2
Appellant then stopped participating in this appeal.  On December 26, 2024,
respondent requested a status conference, reporting that appellant had failed to respond to
discovery requests and had stopped communicating with respondent.
The Board thereafter attempted many times, without success, to reach appellant to
schedule a status conference.  Board staff emailed appellant on January 6, January 13, and
January 26, 2025, but received no response.  Board staff also attempted to reach appellant
by telephone on January 13 and 14, 2025.  Both calls were met with a recording stating that
the call could not be completed.  On January 13, 2025, the Board issued an order directing
appellant to contact Board staff to provide his availability for a teleconference and
transmitted this order both by email and hard copy delivery to appellant’s mailing address. 
Although the Board’s records showed that the letter was delivered, appellant did not respond. 
On January 27, 2025, the Board stayed proceedings in this matter.  Recognizing that
appellant had stated, at one point, that he was a deployed United States Army reservist, the
Board noted that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. § 3932(b) (2024), may
entitle appellant to a stay of proceedings for at least ninety days.  In its order staying
proceedings, the Board directed appellant to “contact the Board as soon as possible.” 
Appellant did not respond.
On May 7, 2025, the Board issued an order directing appellant to notify the Board no
later than June 10, 2025, whether he intended to pursue this appeal.  Appellant did not
respond.
Finally, on August 20, 2025, the Board issued an order directing appellant to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, with a response deadline
of September 4, 2025.  Appellant did not respond.
Discussion
The Board’s rules provide that the Board may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute
either on motion of a party or after permitting a response to an order to show cause. 
Rule 12(b)(1) (48 CFR 6101.12(b)(1) (2024)); see also Rule 12(b)(4).  The Board may also
dismiss a case as a sanction for failure to comply with a direction or order of the Board. 
Rule 35(b)(6).  This authority is reserved for situations “where parties have repeatedly failed
to comply with the tribunal’s orders.”  Elite Quality Services, LLC v. Department of
Commerce, CBCA 5050, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,269, at 176,923 (quoting Medtek, Inc. v.
Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 1544, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,285, at 169,367).

CBCA 8102 3
This is just such a situation.  Appellant has failed to respond to four separate Board
orders, including an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed.  Dismissal
is appropriate in this case.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.
     Elizabeth W. Newsom     
ELIZABETH W. NEWSOM
Board Judge
We concur:
    Allan H. Goodman            Kyle Chadwick                
ALLAN H. GOODMAN KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge Board Judge