In the Matter of the Petition by

GEOFFREY D. JONES
P.O. Box 245
Cottage Grove, OR 97424-0009

Notice of Determination to Close
P.O. Box 245,
Cottage Grove, OR 97424-0009

P.S. Docket No. POB 00-110

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Geoffrey D. Jones
                                                                               79476 Repsleger Road
                                                                               Cottage Grove, OR 97424-0009

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Sara K. Kantorik, Esq.
                                                                               Civil Practice Section
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6333
                                                                               Washington, D.C. 20260-0004

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Jones after receiving a letter from the Cottage Grove Postmaster, dated February 15, 2000, informing him that his post office box would be closed if he did not update his application form by bringing in satisfactory identification.

On April 12, 2000, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed an Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

At Petitioner's request, copies of prior Postal Service decisions and pertinent portions of postal regulations cited in the Motion for Summary Judgment were sent to him, and his time for replying to the motion was extended. Petitioner replied on May 12, 2000, followed by additional responses and counter-responses from both sides. On June 26, 2000, the Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because there were material facts in dispute as to whether Petitioner had presented adequate identification to the Cottage Grove Post Office on May 26, 2000.

The parties were given additional time to submit evidence, including sworn witness statements, on which this factual dispute could be resolved. Respondent filed additional evidence, including sworn declarations from the postmaster and the customer service supervisor at Cottage Grove. Petitioner filed no additional evidence. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner first rented P.O. Box 245 in July 1994 and has rented it continuously since then. (Petition; PS Form 1093, Attachment A to Respondent's June 13, 2000 submission).

2. In early 2000, the Cottage Grove Post Office audited records and found that several post office box applications were incomplete, according to current rules applicable to post office boxes. The postmaster, Mr. Ralls, sent Petitioner a letter, dated February 15, 2000, by certified mail, asking him to bring in some identification so that the identification section of the application form (PS Form 1093) could be filled in. (Ralls Declaration; attachment to Petition).

3. This letter also told Petitioner that his box would be closed in 27 days if he did not comply. The letter then informed Petitioner of his right to file a petition opposing the postmaster's determination. Petitioner did not claim the certified letter, so his post office box was blocked. Petitioner then called the post office and was told his options. On March 20, 2000, Petitioner delivered his petition to the postmaster.

4. The Domestic Mail Manual (DMM55) contains the following pertinent provisions in the chapter covering post office box service, under Section D910:

Application 2.1 To apply for post office box service, the applicant must complete all relevant spaces on Form 1093 and submit it to any postal facility that provides public window service. The facility need not be the one where box service is desired. An incomplete or falsified application is sufficient reason to deny or discontinue service. An application is not approved before the USPS verifies the applicant's identity.

Verification 2.2 At the time of application customers must present two types of valid identification: one must bear a photo and the other must show the applicant's signature and a serial number or other indicia that can be traced to the bearer. Social Security cards are not valid forms of identification. Each person or representative of an organization authorized to receive mail at a specific post office box or caller number must also present two forms of identification.

Updating 3.2 When any information required to be provided by the box customer on Form 1093 changes, the customer must notify the post office of such changes.

These identification requirements were effective on July 31, 1998, and were spelled out in Postal Bulletin 21982, October 8, 1998 (attached). That Postal Bulletin also stated the following guidance for Postal Service personnel: "The person accepting the application must ensure that customers provide two types of identification, one bearing a photo, when submitting PS Form 1093." This Postal Bulletin, and the form itself, also directs the postal employee who verifies the identification and other information to "Enter two types of identification and ID nos." in Item 9 on the PS Form 1093, and to place his/her initials in Item 14 on the form. (See PS Form 1093, July 1998, attached to Respondent's Reply, May 19, 2000).

5. Section D910.8.2 of the DMM gives a postmaster authority to terminate box service for many reasons, including if a customer "refuses to update information on the box application."

6. On May 26, 2000, after two rounds of pleadings had been filed in this case, Petitioner and his wife visited the Cottage Grove Post Office and spoke with William Stein, the Supervisor of Customer Services. Petitioner asked to see his current Form 1093. Mr. Stein showed Petitioner the Form 1093 dated February 11, 2000.¹ Petitioner then showed Mr. Stein a Costco membership card, which contained a photograph of Petitioner, and his signature. He allowed Mr. Stein to record the membership number in Item 9 on the Form 1093. Petitioner also showed Mr. Stein a Visa credit card, which also contained his photograph and his signature, but would not permit Mr. Stein to record the card number. (Stein Declaration, PS Form 1093 attached; Petitioner's May 30, 2000 submission and June 13, 2000 submission).

The only issue to be resolved here is whether Mr. Jones' refusal to allow postal employees to record the identification number from a second piece of identification is a proper basis for terminating his post office box service.

Petitioner argues that DMM §D910.2.2, on which Respondent relies, does not require a customer to present two identification numbers to be recorded. He also argues that the revised §D910.2.2 governs only new applicants, not previously approved box holders, and since the information on his original Form 1093 (July 1994) was accurate the Postal Service has no legitimate reason to require additional identification. Because Petitioner prevails on the first argument, the second argument need not be addressed.²

There is a conflict between the language in DMM §D910.2.2 and the instructions to postal employees found in the quoted language from the Postal Bulletin. While the latter instructs postal employees to enter two identification numbers on the Form 1093, the DMM does not require a customer to provide two forms of identification, both of which include numbers. "[O]ne must bear a photo and the other must show . . . a serial number or other indicia that can be traced to the bearer." The DMM rule is the controlling rule, and if Petitioner was not required to present a second identification that included a serial number, he cannot be held in violation of the rule by refusing to permit a second number to be recorded.

Accordingly, the Petition is granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner is reversed.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹ This Form 1093 is a June 1993 version and is slightly different from the current form.

² Petitioner also makes several arguments about how his constitutional rights have been violated. Those arguments have no merit and need not be addressed. Post office box service is not something any customer has a "right" to. R. C. Tanner, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-67 (P.S.D. May 15, 1998); Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (P.S.D. February 24, 1997); William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 (P.S.D. December 31, 1986); Anthony E. DiBari, P.S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. January 24, 1985).