Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

(3) Appellant’s vague, confusing, and unpersuasive responses to the Board’s orders raise questions as to the credibility and veracity of his responses. 2 In response to a Board order, appellant stated that he did not use artificial intelligence (AI) to draft his motion. A characteristic of using AI is its propensity to “hallucinate,” meaning to create information which appears credible and real but which is actually false, non-existent, or a mischaracterization of existing information. There is no prohibition against using AI at the Board. However, “[i]f using AI, parties retain full responsibility for the accuracy of all submissions to the Board.” Annual Report, United S t a t e s C i v ilian Board of Contract Appeals, Fiscal Y ea r 2 0 2 5, https://cbca.gov/files/2025-CBCA-Annual-Report.pdf (last visited February 23, 2026). CBCA 7992, 7993 5 Sanction Appellant’s actions as described herein constitute sanctionable misconduct pursuant to Board Rule 35. We issue this formal admonishment to appellant to alert appellant that, as the case proceeds, if he continues such conduct, additional and harsher sanctions will be imposed, which could include dismissal of the appeals without proceeding to the merits. Rule 35(b)(6).