In the Matter of the Petition by

THWYLA GREGSTON,
P. O. Box 515,
Holloman AFB, NM 88330-0515,

Termination of Mail Box Service for P. O. Box 515

P.S. Docket No. 28/71

Randolph D. Mason Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Thwyla Gregston
P. O. Box 515
Holloman AFB, NM 88330-0515

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Thomas E. Ziebarth, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
Law Department
U. S. Postal Service
Washington, D. C. 20260-1144

INITIAL DECISION

Background

This proceeding was initiated by the filing of a Petition dated August 10, 1987, seeking to overturn the Determination of the Postmaster on June 2, 1987, to terminate Post Office Box 515 at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. The determination was based upon (1) Petitioner's failure to remove mail from her box for "periods up to six months and more," (2) the failure to provide a current Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box or Caller Number) containing her street address, and (3) failure to respond to the Postmaster's letter dated March 19, 1987, requesting correction of the above violations.

On September 8, 1987, Respondent Postal Service filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss the Petition, alleging that the failure to remove mail and provide an accurate Form 1093 has been clearly demonstrated. By order dated October 8, 1987, the Administrative Law Judge gave Petitioner until October 30, 1987, to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. She was ordered to furnish any additional evidence she may have and to furnish the Postmaster with a completed Form 1093 with her street address rather than a Post Office Box. Petitioner was personally served with a copy of the October 8 order on October 19; in addition, Norma Miller received it on Petitioner's behalf on October 13, 1987. However, Petitioner failed to respond to the Order. She still has not provided the Postmaster with a properly completed Form 1093.

Findings and Conclusions

l. The Domestic Mail Manual ("DMM") provides that a postmaster may close a post office box when the boxholder has violated any regulation or contractual term or condition relating to the care or use of the box. DMM 951.82c. The Determination to close Petitioner's box was based upon two alleged violations of the regulations. The Determination will be upheld if it is found that Petitioner committed either one of these violations.

2. First, the Postmaster held that Petitioner failed to provide the Post Office with a current Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). In this regard, the regulations provide that 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 as soon as they are noted. DMM 951.144. In his letter to Petitioner dated March 19, 1987, the Postmaster noted that her application needed to be updated and that the regulations require a current address. Item 5 on Form 1093 requires the applicant's "street address." Subsequently, on June 2, 1987, the Postmaster issued his determination that the post office box should be closed for two reasons, one being the failure to provide an updated Form 1093. In response, on August 10, 1987, Petitioner filed a new Form 1093 which continued to list a post office box as her address instead of a street address.

3. Subsequently, the Respondent Postal Service filed the Motion to Dismiss the Petition alleging, in part, that the Form 1093 was still deficient. Administrative Law Judge Quentin E. Grant issued an order dated October 8, 1987, requiring Petitioner to immediately furnish the Postmaster at Holloman Air Force Base a Form 1093 containing her street address. Although she clearly received this order, she failed to comply with the Judge's instruction. To date, no properly completed application has been provided.

4. Petitioner's failure to furnish a Form 1093 containing her street address constitutes a violation of DMM 951.144. Anthony E. Dibari , P.S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. 1985). Accordingly, the Postmaster's determination to close Petitioner's post office box is sustained on this ground.

5. In addition, the Postmaster determined that the box should be closed due to Petitioner's violation of DMM 951.152 which prohibits the undue accumulation of mail. That section provides that boxholders must remove mail promptly from their boxes. If mail is to accumulate for more than 30 days and if an overflow condition is probable, specific arrangements must be made in advance with the postmaster. DMM 951.152a.

6. There is no dispute that Petitioner allowed her mail to accumulate in the box for about six months prior to March 19, 1987, when the Postmaster notified her that mail must be removed promptly. He also told her at that time that he had no written authorization for anyone else to pick up her mail. Although Petitioner has attempted to have a friend pick up her mail since that time, the friend has not always been able to do so, and the mail has continued, on occasion, to overflow in her box. When she first learned of the problem, she could easily have given written authorization for her friend to pick up the mail and could have arranged to have the appropriate keys made, but she failed to do so in a timely manner. Petitioner has failed to show good cause for her failure to have her mail promptly removed from her box during either the initial six month period or during the remaining months before filing the Petition. It is concluded that Petitioner has violated DMM 951.152. Accordingly, the violation of this regulation constitutes a separate, additional ground for termination of the Petitioner's box.

Conclusion

Since no genuine issue of material fact exists, there is no need for a hearing. The Determination of the Postmaster to terminate the Petitioner's mail box service for P. O. Box 515, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, is sustained and the Motion to Dismiss is granted.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.