In the Matter of the Petition by

JOHN J. BUCKSHAW, PRINCIPAL
J. J. BUCKSHAW & ASSOCIATES
General Delivery
Bethesda, MD 20814-9999

Appeal of Termination, P.O. Box
194, Media, PA 19063-0194

P.S. Docket No. POB 02-405

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
John J. Buckshaw
J. J. Buckshaw & Associates
General Delivery
Bethesda, MD  20814-9999

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine Green, Esq.
Corporate Law Section
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC  20260-1135

INITIAL DECISION

            Mr. Buckshaw filed his Petition after receiving a notice from the Supervisor of Customer Service for the Media, Pennsylvania Post Office informing him that his post office box service was to be terminated because he failed to comply with the requirement to remove mail from his box on a regular basis.

            Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.^[1]  In the motion for summary judgment, and in Michael Kennedy’s accompanying Declaration, Respondent asserted two additional bases for termination of box service, i.e., that Petitioner was using the box primarily for mail forwarding and that Petitioner refused to verify the residence address listed on his box application (PS Form 1093).

            Petitioner filed a series of replies and, in an Order dated February 5, 2003, each party’s request for summary judgment was denied.

            On the issue of whether Petitioner allowed mail to accumulate in his box at the Media, Pennsylvania Post Office, in violation of DMM §D910.3.3, Mr. Kennedy’s Declaration stated that Petitioner had never come into the Media Post Office to pick up his mail, but Petitioner listed four specific months that he visited the Media Post Office and stated that he visited a total of twelve times.

            On the issue of mail forwarding, Mr. Kennedy stated that Petitioner’s response to being told several times that he needed to pick up his mail was to send in mail forwarding orders.  Petitioner denied that he submitted any forwarding orders until after he was given the termination notice.

            On the issue of residence verification, Mr. Kennedy stated that Petitioner never provided verification of the Washington, D. C. address listed on his box application (PS Form 1093).  Petitioner claimed that he did provide verification in the form of a deed of trust, and also a statement from a Washington, D. C. carrier that was attached to the Form 1093.

            These disputed facts were material to resolution of this case.  Accordingly, each party’s request for summary judgment was denied.

            In the February 5, 2003 Order, the parties were directed, not later than February 18, 2003, to advise the undersigned in writing whether they wished to present evidence at an oral hearing, or whether they preferred to submit additional written evidence in the form of affidavits or sworn declarations from persons who have relevant information, along with any other pertinent documents.  If the parties preferred to submit written evidence, they were directed to do so by March 7, 2003.

            Because it later appeared that neither party received the February 5, 2003 Order, copies were re-sent with an Order dated February 26, 2003.  The February 26 Order also extended the filing deadlines noted in the above paragraph to March 13, 2003, and March 31, 2003, respectively.^[2]

            Petitioner filed a statement that he did not wish to present evidence at an oral hearing, and attached some additional documents.  Respondent filed no reply to the February 5 or February 26 Orders, and filed no additional evidence.

            Once the motion for summary judgment failed, Respondent was required to submit additional evidence to establish one or more of the alleged bases for terminating Petitioner’s post office box service.  Having not done so, Respondent has not carried its burden of proof.  The Petition is granted.  Respondent may not terminate Petitioner’s post office box service based on the matters presented in this record.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  In his Petition, Mr. Buckshaw asked for summary judgment in his favor.

[2]  Petitioner received the original February 5 Order on February 28, 2003.  Respondent never did.  Both parties received the February 26, 2003 Order.