P. S. Docket No. 40/75
April 29, 1993
In the Matter of the Petition by
JAMES D.MAMPLE and
DORRIS C. MAMPLE
1170 NE 2nd
Corvallis, OR 97330-6227
Termination of Post Office Box Service
for P. O. Box 1809, Oakdale, CA P. S. Docket No. 40/75
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONERS: James D. Mample, Pro Se
Dorris C. Mample, Pro Se
1170 NE 2nd
Corvallis, OR 97330-6227
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jeannine H. Walter, Esq.
Consumer Protection Division
Law Department
United States Postal Service
Washington, D.C. 20260-1144
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by James D. and Dorris C. Mample on December 21, 1992, appealing the Postmaster's Determination of November 4, 1992,1/ to terminate service for P. O. Box 1809, Oakdale, CA 95361-1809. The Postmaster determined that the box should be closed because it was being used for the sole purpose of having mail forwarded.
Respondent Postal Service filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that there is no genuine issue of fact that would require an oral hearing. In this regard, Respondent contends there is no dispute that the box was used almost exclusively for forwarding mail for the past three years. In his Motion to Dismiss, Respondent also alleges violations of DMM § § 951.153 (failure to update box application) and 951.162a (unreasonable accumulation of mail).
Petitioners deny that they use the box to have mail forwarded free of charge, and state that they would pay for forwarding. They wish to retain the security of the U. S. mail, which they do not believe a private mail-receiving agency would provide. They assert that they live in a motor home but pick up their mail at their P. O. Box at least six months of each year. They also contend that a P. O. Box gives them a residence for the purpose of voting. Finally, they deny that the forwarding of their mail represents the sole purpose for having the box.
Although some facts are disputed, the record contains a sufficient number of undisputed facts to render a decision herein. The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the pleadings, memoranda, and exhibits attached thereto:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioners James and Dorris Mample have been the boxholders of P. O. Box 1809 in Oakdale, California, since 1984 (Exh. 1). During the years 1990- 1992 they lived at various locations in a motor home, traveling to southern California in winter and to the Oregon coast in the summer.
2. For the past three years, Petitioners have used this box almost exclusively to forward mail to various locations (Exhs. 6, 7). They executed 8-11 forwarding orders each year. Their mail was continuously forwarded with the exception of the following days:
1990 17 days
1991 132 days
1992 78 days
3. Much of the mail delivered to the box during the above periods when no forwarding was requested was subsequently forwarded after Petitioners failed to take delivery and a new order was received. With few exceptions, Petitioners only picked up their mail at the box during the two month period they visited the Oakdale area in the late spring and early summer of 1991 and 1992 (Exh. 6).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Domestic Mail Manual § 951.82 provides that a Postmaster may close a post office box when the box customer has violated any regulation or condition relating to the use of the box. DMM § 951.164 provides:
Forwarding. Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, by subsequently filing change-of-address orders, to have mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service, free of charge.
2. During the period in issue Petitioners filed 30 temporary change-of-address orders that requested forwarding of their mail to addresses other than Oakdale, California, about 80% of the time. Their heavy use of the box for forwarding constitutes a violation of DMM § 951.164. Mrs. Junior E. Powell, P. S. Docket No. 21/159 (P. S. D. Nov. 29, 1985) (11 change of address orders in 2 1/2 years).
3. Petitioners deny that they use the box to have mail forwarded free of charge, and state that they would pay for forwarding. They argue that the Postal Service should charge them for forwarding their mail. However, there is no provision for this. The Administrative Law Judge cannot promulgate regulations and is bound by the existing regulations of the Postal Service. Under the circumstances, the fact remains that Petitioners have used their box for the purpose of forwarding mail free of charge.
4. Petitioners appear to contend that they have a Congressionally-mandated "right" to the use and security of a Post Office box. However, the public does not have such a right. Post Office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service regulations. Charles P. Page, P. S. Docket No. 39/33 (P.S.D. April 21, 1993). Moreover, there is no Constitutional right to a Post Office box. Anthony E. Dibari, P. S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. January 24, 1985).
5. Petitioners also argue that they are entitled to have their mail forwarded from their P. O. Box since they do not have a residence to which the mail can be addressed and delivered. However, Petitioners' lack of a permanent residence does not provide an exception to the rule that a box may not be used for the sole purpose of forwarding.
6. There is no material issue of fact that would require an oral hearing. In view of the above findings and conclusions, the Postmaster's Determination is sustained and the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.2/
Randolph D. Mason
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
1/ The MSC Manager/Postmaster agreed with the Oakdale Postmaster's determination by letter dated November 6, 1992.
2/ In view of this conclusion, it will not be necessary to address the additional violations of the regulations raised by Respondent for the first time in the Answer and Motion to Dismiss.