DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE:  February 13, 2026
CBCA 8260
THOMAS DANIEL BAKER,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Thomas Daniel Baker, pro se, Columbia, MD.
Warren D. Leishman, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY, SHERIDAN, and NEWSOM.
NEWSOM, Board Judge.
For the reasons stated below, the Board dismisses this appeal for failure to prosecute.
Background
The Board docketed this appeal on November 15, 2024.  During October 2025, the
proceedings were disrupted by a lapse in appropriated funds.  After government operations
resumed, the Board held a conference call with the parties on November 19, 2025, to discuss
revising the schedule.  Subsequently, the Board issued an order directing the parties to file
their elections under Board Rule 18 (48 CFR 6101.18 (2024)), stating whether they wished
to have a hearing or to submit this appeal for decision on the written record under Rule 19. 


CBCA 8260 2
The Board also directed the parties to confer and to jointly propose a schedule for the
remaining proceedings.  The elections and proposed schedule were due to be filed on or
before December 19, 2025.
Respondent filed its election and proposed schedule, but appellant did not.  Instead,
appellant sent an email to respondent’s counsel, with a copy to the Board, stating appellant’s
position that his “appeal can not [sic] be finally, justly decided by the board either via hearing
or a Rule 19 submission.”  The Board entered this email into the record.
Subsequently, on December 22, 2025, the Board issued an order directing appellant
to file a document on or before January 15, 2026, either (a) stating that he still wishes to
pursue this appeal, or (b) requesting dismissal of this appeal with prejudice.  The order stated,
in bold letters, that “in the absence of any submission from appellant[,] the Board may
presume that [appellant] no longer wishes to pursue this appeal.  Therefore it is very
important that [appellant] file a response.”  Appellant filed no response.
In an attempt to provide appellant with every possible opportunity to resume pursuing
this appeal, on January 23, 2026, the Board issued an order directing appellant to show cause
why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, with a response deadline of
February 6, 2026.  Appellant did not respond.
Discussion
The Board’s rules provide that the Board may dismiss an appeal 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); see also Brandon Staffing Solutions LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
CBCA 7044, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,050; 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).  “[T]his
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).
This is just such a situation.  Appellant has failed to respond to two separate Board
orders, including an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed.  The
sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate in this appeal.

CBCA 8260 3
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.
     Elizabeth W. Newsom     
ELIZABETH W. NEWSOM
Board Judge
We concur:
    Erica S. Beardsley              Patricia J. Sheridan      
ERICA S. BEARDSLEY PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge Board Judge