___________________________________________________ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED: November 10, 1993 ___________________________________________________ GSBCA 11109(7508-REM)-REIN AFRO-LECON, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Anthony W. Robinson, John A. Turner, and Warner H. Session of the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Michael D. Tully and John E. Cornell, Personal Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, HENDLEY, and VERGILIO. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER Respondent, the General Services Administration, contends that there are numerous deficiencies in appellant's June 1, 1993, response to our Order on Accounting dated July 3, 1985. Accordingly, respondent has moved to sanction appellant, Afro- Lecon, Inc., for discovery abuse and asks that appellant's claim be dismissed and monetary sanctions imposed upon appellant and its counsel. We note that we have given appellant three chances to respond to our Order on Accounting. We recognize that respondent has found each of appellant's responses wanting. Nonetheless, sanctions against appellant for discovery abuse are not appropriate. At no time has appellant refused to answer this Board's Order. Rather, appellant has consistently asserted that it is unable to respond to the strict terms of the Order. Moreover, we have been presented with no evidence, other than appellant's responses, in support of the proposition that appellant has willfully disregarded this Board's order. In fact, appellant's responses coupled with its expressed inability to comply with this Board's order convince us that appellant has not willfully disregarded this Board's Order. It is inappropriate for this Board to sanction appellant for its legitimate inability to comply with this Board's Order. See Griffin & Dickson v. United States, 16 Cl.Ct. 347 (1989) (noting that intentional disregard of a Board's order is necessary for the severe sanction of dismissal). Accordingly, appellant's response to our Order does not justify dismissal of its claim or the imposition of monetary sanctions. Id. Consequently, we DENY respondent's motion for sanctions. We note that this disposition of respondent's motion does not act to relieve appellant of the terms of this Board's Order on Accounting to the extent that the appellant is capable of compliance. ____________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We Concur: ___________________________ ____________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge