In the Matter of the Petition by:

LOU GUIMOND,
P.O. Box 947,
Darien, CT 06820-0947
and
at P.O. Box 991,
Darien, CT 06820-0991;

Determination to Close Post Office Boxes

P.S. Docket No. 34/95

Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Lou Guimond, Petitioner pro
se, P.O. Box 947, Darien, CT 06820-0947 and P.O. Box 991,
Darien, CT 06820-0991

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: H. Richard Hefner, Esq., Consumer
Protection Division, Law Department, United States Postal Service,
Washington, DC 20260-1114

INITIAL DECISION

Holding that the undersigned improperly dismissed this matter in a decision dated July 21, 1989, the Judicial Officer remanded the matter for further evidentiary proceedings on the limited issue of material fact whether the address 15 Nash Place, Norwalk, CT 06854, furnished to the Postmaster at Darien, CT, was Petitioner's correct address at the time it was submitted.

A hearing was held in Stamford, CT, on September 28, 1989. Petitioner Lou Guimond testified in his own behalf. Respondent presented testimony of Gerald Fennell, the Postmaster at Darien, and Richard P. Evans, a postal inspector, together with several documentary exhibits. Respondent has filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Petitioner has not done so although given the opportunity. To the extent indicated below, Respondent's proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted; otherwise, they have been rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the evidence. Based on the relevant parts of the entire record herein, my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and the relevant exhibits and testimony adduced at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. Since early 1970, Petitioner Lou Guimond has been the boxholder of P.O. Boxes 947 and 991 in Darien, CT. He has used those boxes for the conduct of business under the names Southport News and Rowayton Home Delivery (Exhibits 1 & 2 ^1/). The business and home address given on his original applications for the boxes in 1969 and 1970 was Betmarlea Rd., Norwalk, CT.

2. About mid-April 1989, in response to a postal patron's complaint of inability to reach Mr. Guimond through P.O. Box 991 or at the address Mr. Guimond had furnished on his box application, Gerald Fennell, the Postmaster at Darien, CT, requested that Guimond update his application for both P.O. boxes by furnishing his correct address on forms 1093.

3. In response to the postmaster's request, Mr. Guimond first returned the forms showing, in item 5, the P.O. boxes as his address. When advised by the postmaster in a letter dated April 24, 1989, that a street address was required, Mr. Guimond furnished the address Tommy's Lane, Vista, NY 10590, written in over the whited out P.O. box numbers in item 5 (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6). Mr. Fennell requested the Postmaster at South Salem, NY (serving Vista, NY) to verify the Tommy's Lane address. The response to this request was "unknown at that address" (Exhibit 7).

4. Then, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Guimond on or about May 8, 1989, Mr. Fennell was told that Guimond's correct address was 15 Nash Place, Norwalk, CT 06854, and that the Tommy's Lane address had been furnished because Guimond had intended to move there but had had to change his plans.

5. Mr. Fennell then requested the Norwalk Post Office to verify the 15 Nash Place address. The response to this request was the information that Mr. Guimond did not reside at 15 Nash Place, but rather at Shorefront Park, Norwalk, CT 06854 (Exh. 8).

6. Following receipt of this advice, on May 8, 1989, Mr. Fennell wrote Mr. Guimond that the new box applications were being denied for Guimond's failure to comply with postal regulations applicable to post office box applications and, specifically, for furnishing two unverifiable addresses in item 5 of the applications. The letter stated that the boxes would be closed if Mr. Guimond did not furnish change of address orders for both boxes by June 30, 1989 (Exh. 9).

7. Mr. Guimond initiated the instant proceeding by filing a timely petition opposing the postmaster's determination to close the boxes.

8. To substantiate the 15 Nash Place address, Petitioner has furnished a bill from CL&P (presumably Connecticut Light & Power Co.) covering electric service furnished to that address during the period March 13-April 11, 1989. The name Lou Guimond appears on the bill but the bill was addressed to him and received by him at P.O. Box 947, Darien, CT (Tr. 48).

9. Petitioner owns the premises at 15 Nash Place, a residential building containing two apartments both of which are usually rented (Tr. 46, 47, 49). At or about the time Petitioner furnished that address on the forms 1093 one of the apartments was vacant.

10. At one point in his testimony, Mr. Guimond stated that on April 27, 1989, the date on which he resubmitted the two box applications showing 15 Nash Place as his address, he resided there (Tr. 39, 40). At another point, he said he resided there from the early part of May but it could have been the latter part of April and that he couldn't recall exactly because he was "bouncing, bouncing around" (Tr. 40), and "I was in and out" (Tr. 42).

11. Other than the electric bill mentioned above, Mr. Guimond said he could offer no substantiation of his testimony that he resided at 15 Nash Place or was physically present there at the time he gave it as his address on the forms 1093 (Tr. 47).

12. The testimony of Postal Inspector Richard P. Evans corroborated the inability of the Norwalk Post Office to verify Mr. Guimond's address as being 15 Nash Place. His investigation revealed that neither of the Postal Service mail carriers who had served that address during the past five years was familiar with Mr. Guimond, had found him present or residing at that address, or had delivered mail to him there (Tr. 35-37). The Norwalk Police Department advised Inspector Evans that its only known address for Mr. Guimond was 30 Shore Front Park (Tr. 36). The two mail carriers serving that address over the past several years were familiar with Mr. Guimond, finding him frequently present when they made deliveries of mail addressed to 30 Shore Front Park and dealing with him there frequently with respect to certified and registered mail requiring receipts which he made it a policy not to sign (Tr. 36, 37).

13. Mr. Guimond admitted that he did not receive personal mail at 15 Nash Place during the time he claimed to reside there, continuing to receive mail at 30 Shore Front Park because "there was no point" in changing his address for personal mail (Tr. 45, 46).

14. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Guimond resided at 30 Shore Front Park.

15. Mr. Guimond did not dispute any part of Inspector Evans' testimony concerning the results of his investigation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Under § 951.81 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), a postmaster may refuse to issue a post office box where an applicant has submitted a falsified application for box service. Under DMM § 951.82 a postmaster may close a post office box when the box customer has falsified the application for the box.

2. Based on all the evidence in the record, I conclude that the 15 Nash Place address furnished by Mr. Guimond in the updated box applications (properly required of him by the Darien Postmaster (DMM § 951.153)) may not be regarded as a bona fide residential or business address, as required by the regulations (DMM § 951.142b (2)) at the time he furnished that address. Mr. Guimond does not claim to have conducted business at that address at any time. His claim that it was his residence at the time he filed the updated applications is refuted by the verification conducted by the Darien Postmaster and Postal Inspector Evans. Further, Mr. Guimond's own testimony gave his claim of residence at 15 Nash Place only the most equivocal support. He testified at one point that he did reside there on April 27 when he submitted the updated applications. But immediately thereafter he said he resided there from the early part of May, possibly the latter part of April, and that he couldn't recall exactly because he was "bouncing around", "in and out." The utility bill fails to support his claim because it covers a period earlier than he says he resided there and was mailed to him at one of his post office boxes. His name on the bill is some indication of his ownership of the property but does not establish the fact of his residence there. I did not find Mr. Guimond to be a credible witness.

3. Mr. Guimond failed to furnish a correct residential or business address as required by the regulations. Therefore, the Darien Postmaster properly determined to close boxes 947 and 991. The petition is dismissed.

1/ All exhibits received in evidence at the hearing are Postal Service exhibits.