In the Matter of the Appeal by                               )
                                                                              )
FRANKLIN R. LEYSHON                                        )
P. O. Box 72                                                          )
Fairfax, CA 94930                                                 )
                                                                              )
Notice of Intent to Close Post                                )
Office Box                                                             )           P.S. Docket No. 8/100

                                                                              Franklin R. Leyshon,
                                                                              P. O. Box 72,
                                                                              Fairfax, CA 94930, Appellant

                                                                              John F. Ventresco, Esq.,
                                                                              Law Department
                                                                              United States Postal
                                                                              Service, Washington, DC 20260, Respondent

Duvall, William A.

INITIAL DECISION

On May 8, 1980, the General Counsel, United States Postal Service Washington, D.C. (Respondent) gave notice to Franklin R. Leyshon, Post Office Box 72, Fairfax, California 94930 (Appellant) that, subject to the outcome of this appeal, an order directing the closing of the said box would be issued.

The reason for the contemplated action was stated as follows:

"You have violated Section 951.144, Domestic Mail Manual, by failing to update your post office box application. Pursuant to Section 951.422, Domestic Mail Manual, this violation constitutes grounds for closing the box."

By letter dated May 15, 1980, Mr. Leyshon appealed the proposed closing of his post office box. He stated that he had used the box and paid the rent therefor for 12 years. He admitted that he had had no permanent address since the first of April, 1980, but he said that he would have such an address on the first of June.

In a letter dated June 30, 1980, Mr. Leyshon stated that he needs the box very much for both regular and business mail, but that he still has no permanent address. He stated that as soon as he gets the money to rent a place to live he will give the postmaster the new address.

Respondent filed its Answer and Motion to Dismiss Appeal on June 13, 1980. Attached to this document was a memorandum signed by Lloyd H. Moon, Postmaster, at Fairfax, CA 94930, which memorandum insofar as it is here pertinent, reads as follows:

"On April 28, 1980, we asked Franklin R. Leyshon of P.O. Box 72 to update his box application because it was noted that he no longer lived at the address that he had on his box application.

Mr. Leyshon was informed that this was required by section 951.144 of the Domestic Mail Manual. Mr. Leyshon has refused to update his application in a conversation on April 28, 1980. He was informed that he could loose his P.O. Box if he failed to update the application but he still refused to do so."

The following regulations are applicable to the present situation:

§ 951.141

"Individuals. An individual boxholder may receive through his box, mail addressed to himself, his family, relatives, or other persons residing in his household, whether permanently or temporarily, if the mail is properly addressed to the box number."

* * *

§ 951.144

"Updating Application Form. Whenever any information required on Form 1093 changes or becomes obsolete, it is the duty of the boxholder to file a revised application reflecting such changes. Changes or obsolete information must be updated as soon as noted."

* * *

§ 951.822

"Grounds for Closure or Refusal to Renew. A box may be closed whenever the boxholder *** has violated or is violating, any of the regulations or contractual terms or conditions relating to its care and use."

It is noted that Mr. Leyshon admitted in both of the letters cited above that he has no permanent address to report to the Postmaster at Fairfax, California. Accordingly, Postal Service Counsel correctly pointed out in the Motion to Dismiss that there are no genuine or material issues of fact requiring a hearing.

Also in the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent's Counsel states:

"We note that closing the box would not deprive Mr. Leyshon of receipt of his mail, which would be transferred to General Delivery pursuant to § 951.43, Domestic Mail Manual."

The provisions of § 951.43 are now contained in § 951.83, which reads as follows:

".83 Disposition of Mail. When a box has been closed pursuant to 951.81 or 951.82, or by the order of the Judicial Officer, the customer will be notified and mail addressed to the customer's box number will be transferred to General Delivery where it will be held the current time limit for forwarding. At the end of the applicable period, all mail addressed to the boxholder will be handled as undeliverable. However, this procedure will not preclude compliance with the sender's request for a specific retention period in accordance with 122.32."

Appellant's letter of June 30, 1980, referred to above was Mr. Leyshon's Answer to the Motion to Dismiss. It has been seen that Mr. Leyshon did not deny any of the matters stated as the basis of the proposal to close the Post Office Box. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is well taken and must be granted.

This appeal is hereby dismissed and it is concluded that Franklin R. Leyshon's right to further use of Post Office Box 72 at Fairfax, California, is terminated.