In the Matter of the Petition by          )
                                                         )
EDWIN G. BLAKE                             )
146 Lost Acres Road                       )
North Granby, CT 06060-1313         )
                                                         )
                                                         )
                                                         )
Denial of Application to Rent P.O.    )
Box 3086, Kennebunkport, ME         )   P. S. Docket No. 41/7

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:      Edwin Blake
                                                         146 Lost Acres Road
                                                         North Granby, CT 06060-1313

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  Jeannine H. Walter
                                                         Consumer Protection Law
                                                         475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
                                                          Washington, DC 20260-1147

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Petitioner has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which held that the Kennebunkport, ME, Postmaster's refusal to rent Petitioner P.O. Box 3086 was not a determination as provided in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) and therefore not reviewable by the Administrative Law Judge.

BACKGROUND

On September 11, 1993, Petitioner filed an application for post office box service requesting that he be assigned P.O. Box 3086, Kennebunkport, ME. The Kennebunkport Postmaster advised Petitioner that he was holding box 3086 vacant as it was the subject of a mail dispute and returned Petitioner's post office box application and box rental fee.

Petitioner filed an appeal from the Postmaster's decision as provided in DMM §D910.7.4 and the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. Part 958. Respondent filed an answer and motion to dismiss in which it contented that the Postmaster's decision was not a determination as provided in the DMM and the issue is not ripe for review because the box requested is the subject of a mail dispute which is being adjudicated under 39 C.F.R. Part 965. The Administrative Law Judge granted Respondent's motion

DISCUSSION

Under DMM §§D910.7.3 and D910.7.4 when a postmaster either refuses to grant post office box service, or terminates a customer's post office box service, he must notify the applicant of his determination and advise the applicant of the procedures for appealing that determination to the Judicial Officer Department. As the Postmaster's refusal to provide service did not fall within one of the reasons for denial of service provided in DMM §D910.7.1⁽¹⁾ the Administrative Law Judge found that such a refusal was not a determination under DMM §§D910.7.3 and D910.7.4 and therefore, not reviewable by the Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer. Petitioner contends that the Postmaster's refusal to grant post office box service was improper because it was not based on any of the grounds listed in DMM §D910.7.1

While the Postmaster's denial of post office box service was not issued in the form of a determination under DMM §§D910.7.3 and D910.7.4, it was nonetheless an effective denial of service which is reviewable by the Judicial Officer Department⁽²⁾ under the procedures provided in 39 C.F.R. Part 958. As Petitioner contends, the denial was not based on any of the reasons enumerated in DMM §D910.7.1. Nonetheless, the rental of a post office box is a premium service, and Petitioner has no right to any specific box number. See DMM §D910.1.1, David S. DeRiemer, P.S. Docket No. 39/141 at 4 (P.S.D. Nov. 10, 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). Since Petitioner requested box 3086 only, and that box is presently the subject of a mail dispute to which Petitioner has no right, the Postmaster acted reasonably in denying Petitioner's application for that box.

Accordingly, the determination of the Kennebunkport, ME, Postmaster denying Petitioner's application for assignment of post office box 3086 is affirmed.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer

1. A postmaster may refuse to approve post office box service if the applicant submits a false application, the applicant physically abused a box within the preceding two years, or the postmaster has reason to believe the box will be used for unlawful activity.

2. Both Respondent and the Administrative Law Judge cited William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55 (P.S.D. April 26, 1993) and Max Koenig, P.S. Docket No. 20/115 (I.D. Oct. 21, 1985) neither of which support the Conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer have no jurisdiction to decide this case. Kuntz involved the surrender of box service, and Koenig involved post office box service that was restored to the existing box holder making the appeal filed by the box holder moot.