In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC.                 )
625 N. New Ballas #209                                        )
                                                                               )
               at                                                             )
                                                                               )
St. Louis, MO 63141-6713                                     )
                                                                               )
Denial of Application for Post                                 )
Office Box at Creve Coeur, MO                             )    P.S. Docket No. 39/14

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                            Richard Jacobs
                                                                                625 N. New Balias #209
                                                                                St. Louis, MO 63141-6713

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Jerry Belenker, Esq.
                                                                               Consumer Protection Division
                                                                               Law Department
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               Washington, DC 20260-1144

PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC. (Petitioner) has filed an of an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which upholds the determination of the St. Louis Field Division General Manager/Postmaster (Postmaster) denying Petitioner's application for a post office box at Creve Coeur Branch, St. Louis, MO Post Office.

Petitioner rented Post Office Box 12705 at the Creve Coeur Branch, St. Louis, MO Post Office, from sometime in 1982 until March of 1990 when the box was closed and considered surrendered for nonpayment of rental fees. See Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 37/120 at 2 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991), aff'd on recon., (P.S.D. Oct. 28, 1991). Thereafter, Petitioner attempted to obtain reinstatement of its right to use Box 12705 by filing a new post office box application. Id. The application listed "M. Dillard, V.P. & Dir., Property Exchange & Sales" as applicant, and "6612 Torlina Dr." as the applicant's address (I.D., Finding of Fact (FOF) ¶¶1 & 3). The application was signed by "M. Dillard, V. President" (I.D., FOF ¶1).

Petitioner's request for reinstatement of Box 12705 was denied on the grounds that the box had been rented to another customer. See Property Exchange, at 2 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991). The denial of Petitioner's request for reinstatement of Box 12705 was the subject of an earlier appeal by Petitioner which was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Property Exchange, P.S.Docket No. 37/120 (I.D. May 8, 1991), aff'd, (P.S.D. Sept 12, 1991), aff'd on recon., (P.S.D. Oct 28, 1991).

Subsequently, Petitioner demanded that a decision be issued granting it a new post office box at the Creve Coeur Branch Post Office. On March 13, 1992, the Postmaster issued a written determination denying Petitioner's application for a new post office box on the grounds that the Postal Service was unable to verify that M. Dillard (Dillard) was Petitioner's corporate vice president or that the Torlina Drive address was its corporate address (I.D., FOF &$182;3). According to the Postmaster, the furnishing of false information or refusal to furnish required information was sufficient reason, under Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)&$167;951.141, to deny Petitioner's application.

Petitioner filed an appeal from the written determination of the Postmaster in which it denied that its application contained false information or that the address provided on the application was not verifiable. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that providing the residential address of its vice president was not improper since DMM §951.142(b)(2) discusses verification in terms of where the "applicant resides or conducts business." Petitioner also asserted that no verification of the Torlina Drive address was necessary because Petitioner was a "known applicant" under DMM §951.142(a), and because the address was verified by a Postal employee who examined Dillard's driver's license when the application was submitted.

Respondent, the United States Postal Service, opposed the appeal contending that Petitioner's status as a "known applicant'' was irrelevant since its applicafion contained false information. Respondent claimed that the Torlina Drive address was not Petitioner's corporate address and that Dillard, a former housekeeper for Petitioner's registered agent, Richard Jacobs (Jacobs), was not in fact a vice president of Petitioner. Nevertheless, Respondent stated that Petitioner could immediately receive a new post office box if it presented a new application containing a verifiable address for either Petitioner or its registered agent Jacobs.

The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision upholding the Postmaster's determination to deny Petitioner's application for a post office box (I.D., at 6). The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the application contained false information in violation of DMM §951.141 since the Torlina Drive address was not Petitioner's corporate address and Dillard was not Petitioner's vice president "in any ordinary, conventional, or accepted sense" (I.D., at 5).

In its appeal to the Judicial Officer, Petitioner repeats many of the same arguments considered and rejected in the Initial Decision. Petitioner claims, as before, that its application did not contain false information since Dillard is Petitioner's vice president and the address provided on the application is the address where Dillard resides. In addition, Petitioner claims that the Administrative Law Judge erred by using his own subjective opinion, rather than legal authority, in determining that Dillard was not Petitioner's uice president, and by ignoring a letter of the Postmaster General stating that Petitioner was entitled to another post office box. Petitioner also contends that DMM ~951.142 does not authorize the Postal Service to conduct an investigation into its application and requires verification of the application within three days, submittal. Respondent has not appeal from the Administrative not two years, after its filed a response to Petitioner's Law Judge's Initial Decision.

Despite its arguments on appeal, Petitioner has not shown that the Initial Decision is in error or that the determination to deny its application for a post office box was improper. Post office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service requirements, and the Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable informational requirements in formulating the criteria for box service.See DMM §951.11; David DeReimer, P.S. Docket No. 39/141 at 4 (P.S.D. Nov. 10, 1992), aff'd, (December 22, 1992); William H. Lahan, P.S Docket No. 24/156 at 6-7 (P.S.D. Dec. 31, 1986); Mrs. Junior E. Powell, P.S. Docket No. 21/159 at 2 (P.S.D. Nov. 29, 1985). In this case, the Postal Service's requirement that Petitioner provide a verifiable corporate address on its application for box service appears reasonable since Petitioner, not Dillard, is the applicant for the service.

Petitioner also claims that the Administrative Law Judge used an improper standard in concluding that Dillard was not an officer of Petitioner. However, the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion is supported by a Postal Inspector's declaration reflecting that Dillard was a housekeeper to Petitioner's registered agent Jacobs and never performed any duties or received any pay as Petitioner's vice president (Inspector Zieseniss Declaration, at ~f8). On these facts, it cannot be concluded that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that Dillard was not a vice president of Petitioner.

Petitioner's argument that the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly concluded that the Postal Service had implied authority to investigate its application, and that such investigation was not restricted to the three-day verification period provided in DMM ~951.142(b)(2), is also unpersuasive. The Postal Service may conduct an investigation when it has a reasonable basis for suspecting on an application is incorrect. See generally 39 U.S.C. §404(a)(7); 5 U.S.C. App., §§2, 4, 6, 8E(2) & 9(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. §3061. Such basis exists in this case since the Postal Service did not believe that Dillard was the vice president of Petitioner. Although DMM §951.142(b)(2) does provide for a three-day verification period, additional time may be taken where an applicant has failed to provide information requested by Postal Service officials. In this case, Petitioner has failed to provide the additional information sought by the Postal Service and thus has contributed to any delay which may have occurred. Moreover, while there was a short delay in conducting the investigation, the principal cause of the delay in processing Petitioner's application for a new post office box resulted from the litigation which Petitioner initiated for return of Box 12705. Under these circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge did not error in concluding that Respondent could exceed the three-day period provided in the DMM to verify Petitioner's application.

Equally unpersuasive is Petitioner's claim that the Administrative Law Judge, in rendering his decision, should have relied on the letter of the Postmaster General dated November 26, 1990, which states that Jacobs provided a "fixed address" on the application and should be provided another post office box. The "fixed address" referred to in the letter was the Torlina Drive address which was subsequently determined to be an improper address for inclusion on the application.

Since the information furnished on the application fails to provide Petitioner's corporate address as requested, and further misrepresents Dillard to be Petitioner's vice president, the application contains false and incomplete information, which under DMM §951.141 is sufficient reason for its denial.^*/ Accordingly, the record supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Postmaster properly denied Petitioner's application for a post office box. Petitioner's appeal from the Initial Decision is denied.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Oflficer

* DMM §951.141(a) states:

"Furnishing false information on the application or refusal to furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service."