In the Matter of          )
the Appeal of             )
TELESTAR CORPORATION      )      Docket No. GPOBCA 09-99
Jacket No.774-959         )
Program 3871-S            )


Appellant, Telestar Corporation, filed a notice of appeal with
the Board on April 27, 1999, following the contracting officer's
denial of the company's request for an equitable adjustment on
Program 3871-S.  Following receipt of the appeal, the Board
provided Appellant a copy of the Board's rules of procedure, and
advised Appellant that it was required by Board rules to file a
complaint within 30 days.  Appellant failed to file a complaint,
or request additional time in which to file.
On July 15, 1999, the Board advised Appellant that its appeal
letter of April 27, 1999, did not sufficiently define the matters
at issue so as to meet the requirements of a complaint under
Board Rule 6.  The Board issued an order requiring Appellant to
file a compliant within seven days after receipt of the order.
Appellant received the order by certified mail on July 19, 1999.
However, Appellant did file a complaint.
On August 9, 1999, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the
Board issued an Order  to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (Order To Show
Cause), directing the Appellant to state its reasons for not
complying with the requirements of the Board Rules, and its
reasons for not submitting its Rule 6(a) Complaint.
The Order to Show Cause directed the Appellant to file a written
response to the Board within five (5) days from its receipt,
showing such cause as it may have as to why the appeal should not
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
On August 12, 1999, the Board received a letter from Appellant
which failed to address the issues raised in the Board's Order to
Show Cause.  Instead, the letter addressed a subsequent decision
of the Contracting Officer which terminated Program 3871-S for
Rule 31 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record
discloses, inter alia, that a party has:  (1) failed to file
documents required by the rules; (2) failed to respond to the
Board's notices or correspondence; or (3) otherwise indicates an
intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense of
an appeal.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  Based on the foregoing facts,
it is clear to the Board that dismissal is justified in this case
on one or more of those grounds.  That is, the record in this
appeal amply demonstrates that the Appellant has ignored the
Board's rules and directives with respect to pleadings, has
failed to respond to the Board's correspondence, and has
otherwise indicated an intention not to continue the orderly
prosecution of its appeal.  No other conclusion is warranted by
its failure to file a Complaint or to provide a substantive
response to the Order to Show Cause.  See Printing Press, GPOBCA
No. 16-98 (Mar. 29, 1999), 1999 GPOBCA LEXIS 30; Bedrock Printing
Company, GPOBCA 05-91 (April 10, 1992), slip op. at 5-6 (citing
David M. Noe, AGBCA No. 88-155-1, 89-1 BCA  21,560; Leonard V.
West, PSBCA No. 1443, 86-3 BCA 19,060).

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered carefully
Appellant's pro se status.  See, Quincey Carpenter v. United
States, 38 Fed. Cl. 576 (1997); and cases cited therein.
However, formal legal training is not necessary for responding to
simple deadlines or for otherwise prosecuting an appeal.  See,
Airborne Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 45491 et al., 95-1 BCA 
27,496, aff'd on recon. at   27,311. The Board has also
considered its obligation to litigants to manage its docket in an
efficient and expeditious manner.  The record demonstrates
Appellant's intent to abandon prosecution of this appeal.
Appellant has not otherwise made any showing that the appeal
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with
However, Appellant's August 12, 1999, letter does constitute a
timely appeal of the Contracting Officer's May 5, 1999,
termination of Program 3871-S for default.  Accordingly, this new
appeal will be docketed by the Board under a separate order.

It is so Ordered.

August 26, 1999                     KERRY L. MILLER
Administrative Judge