In the Matter of the Petition by

G. W. HAIGHT
P.O. Box 962
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816-0962

Determination to terminate Post Office Box Service

P.S. Docket No. POB 02-431

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
G.W. Haight
P.O. Box 962
Coeur d’Alene, ID  83816-0962

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green
Law Department
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC  20260-1135

INITIAL DECISION

            This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Haight after receiving a letter dated June 28, 2002, from Dan Stanaway, Couer d’Alene, Idaho Postmaster. This letter, read in conjunction with earlier correspondence, informed Petitioner that his post office box service would be terminated on July 10, 2002 if he did not provide updated information.

            On November 21, 2002, 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.  Attached to the motion was a sworn declaration from Mr. Stanaway and several pieces of correspondence between him and Petitioner.  Petitioner was given an opportunity, including two extensions of time, to reply to the motion and did so.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 962 at the Couer d’Alene Post Office since December 1986 (Petition; Stanaway Declaration).

            2.  A PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, dated December 9, 1986, was signed by Petitioner.  The form included a residence address and telephone number.  W. Dea Haight, Law Service PM, and Dawn L. Haight were listed as other authorized users.  (Stanaway Declaration, Ex. A).

            3.  On April 4, 2002, Mr. Pool, a clerk at the Couer d’Alene Post Office, wrote a letter to Petitioner and placed it in Box 962.  Mr. Pool stated that on reviewing all box applications, they noted that Petitioner’s was dated in 1986 and that some of the information might be obsolete.  He asked Petitioner to update the information by filling out a new PS Form 1093, and instructed Petitioner to present the new application at the post office, with two pieces of identification.  The letter also stated that other persons, or representatives of organizations, authorized to receive mail at Box 962 must also present two forms of identification.  (Stanaway Declaration, Ex. B).

            4.  Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Pool’s letter and, on May 31, 2002, Postmaster Stanaway sent Petitioner a similar letter, also stating that failure to update the application could result in termination of service.  (Stanaway Declaration, Ex. C).

            5.  Petitioner replied to Mr. Stanaway’s May 31 letter on June 7, 2002.  He stated that he had not updated the Form 1093 because none of the information had changed.  (Stanaway Declaration, Ex. D).

            6.  During June 2002, Petitioner and Mr. Stanaway exchanged a further series of letters.  Mr. Stanaway sent Petitioner a copy of, and quoted from, the January 7, 2001 version of the Domestic Mail Manual chapter on post office box service, in support of his insistence that Petitioner must complete a new PS Form 1093 and present two forms of identification.  Petitioner conceded that his drivers’ license number had changed and he provided the new number.  Otherwise, however, he stated that no other information needed updating and continued to argue that the postmaster had cited no regulatory provision that required him to complete a new Form 1093 or to present identification.  (Stanaway Declaration, Exs. E-K).

            7.  In his June 21, 2002 letter to the postmaster, Petitioner stated that the postmaster could delete W. Dea Haight and Dawn L. Haight from the list of authorized users (Stanaway Declaration, Ex. I).

            8.  The January 7, 2001 edition of the DMM, relied upon by the postmaster, and by Respondent in the Motion for Summary Judgment, contained the following pertinent provisions in Section D910:

            Verification   At the time of application customers must present two 2.2 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 call number
                                    must also provide two forms of identification.

 Proof of Physical    An applicant for post office box service, each person
            Address        or representative of an organization authorized to
                        2.3       receive mail at a specific post office box or caller number, or a current box customer seeking renewal must identify his
                                    or her physical address . . ..  If the postmaster cannot confirm the physical address, the applicant or box customer must
                                    provide proof of the physical address . . ..

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

            9.  The current version of these DMM provisions, which was effective on August 23, 2001, is slightly different.  The requirement to update the application (Form 1093) when any changes occur remains the same, but is now found in §D910.2.1.  The provisions requiring verification of the applicant’s identity and physical address are now combined in §D910.2.2.  This section states that, “An application for post office box service may not be approved until the applicant’s identity and current permanent physical address where he or she resides or conducts business is verified.”  The verification criteria are then described.  There is no longer any reference to “a current boxholder seeking renewal.”

            10.  Section D910.8.2 of the DMM gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if the customer “refuses to update information on the box application.”

DECISION

            Respondent’s position is that postal rules require Petitioner to provide verification of his physical address, two forms of personal identification, two forms of identification for W. Dea Haight and Dawn Haight, and two forms of identification for a representative of Law Service PM.  Respondent contends that Petitioner has provided none of these things and, therefore, the postmaster acted within his authority under DMM §910.8.2 to terminate service to Box 962.

            Petitioner contends that he has complied with all required DMM rules.  I conclude that Petitioner is correct.  Although he did not complete a new Form 1093, Petitioner did provide the updated information via his letters.  This included the new drivers’ license number, a statement that his residence address remained the same, and his direction to delete the names W. Dea Haight and Dawn Haight as authorized users.  While it does not seem onerous for Petitioner to have done this by filling out a new form, I find nothing in the rules that requires it.

            As for the requirement to provide proof to verify his physical address, the phrase making this applicable to customers seeking renewal has been deleted from the DMM.  As for the requirement to present two items of personal identification, I read the DMM provisions as requiring this for new applicants, not for customers who already have an approved application on file.

            This leaves one loose end.  If someone other than Petitioner intends to receive mail as a representative of the entity known as “Law Service PM,” that person can be required to present appropriate identification.  Petitioner has not provided the postmaster with information on this point, but viewing the totality of circumstances in this case, this is not a sufficient basis for terminating box service.

            The Petition is granted.  The determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner at P.O. Box 962 is reversed.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge