P.S. Docket No. POB 05-93
August 25, 2005
In the Matter of the Petition by
REBEKAH KENNEDY
P.O. Box 1205
Jerome, AZ 86331-1205
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box Service for P.O. Box 1205, Jerome, AZ 86331-1205
P.S. Docket No. POB 05-93
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Rebekah Kennedy
P.O. Box 1205
Jerome, AZ 86331-1205
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC 20260-1135
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Kennedy after Vicki Sommers, the Jerome, Arizona Postmaster, informed her that post office box service would be terminated unless she verified her entitlement to free box service or paid the required fee to rent the box.
On July 18, 2005, 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 Ms. Sommers and some supporting documents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so. As Petitioner did not reply, the following findings of fact are based on the documents submitted in support of Respondent’s motion and with the Petition.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. If certain conditions are met, some Postal Service customers are entitled to free (Group E) post office box service.[1] For some time, Petitioner had box service at the Group E rate for Box 1205 at the Jerome, Arizona Post Office. (Petition; Sommers declaration, ¶¶ 4-5).
2. Shortly after Ms. Sommers became the Jerome Postmaster in April 2005, she reviewed all post office box applications as is required annually, and found that Petitioner did not have documentation on file to verify her entitlement to the Group E rate. On approximately May 9, 2005, Ms. Sommers met with Petitioner, who told Ms. Sommers that she shared a house with a friend. The friend qualified for the Group E rate and already had another box at the Jerome Post Office. Ms. Sommers told Petitioner that postal regulations did not permit two people at the same residence to hold two separate Group E post office boxes. She further told Petitioner that she could keep Box 1205 if she paid the regular rental fee, or she could have her mail forwarded to her friend’s Group E box. (Sommers declaration, ¶ 6, 10).
3. When Petitioner did not exercise either option, Ms. Sommers temporarily locked Box 1205 and told Petitioner that she must make a decision by June 3, 2005, or the box service would be terminated. (Sommers declaration, ¶¶ 7-8).
4. On May 27, 2005, Petitioner submitted a permanent change-of-address card, directing that her mail be forwarded to her friend’s post office box. Ms. Sommers processed this request, began forwarding the mail and closed Box 1205. She did not issue a written notice to Petitioner that she was terminating service to Box 1205. (Sommers declaration, ¶ 11; Ex. C, attached to declaration).
5. Postal regulations state that a post office box is surrendered if the customer submits a permanent change-of-address order.[2]
DECISION
The scope of the rules in 39 C.F.R. Part 958 is limited to “cases in which a postmaster has issued a Determination denying an application for post office box or caller service, or terminating the box or caller service being provided to a customer.”[3] There is no requirement for a postmaster to issue a written Determination on Group E rate matters, and the Judicial Officer Department has no jurisdiction to review a postmaster’s decision regarding the applicability of Group E rates. (See, Everett J. Miller, P. S. Docket No. POB 02-428 (P.S.D. Feb. 14, 2003; George J. Devos, P. S. Docket No. POB 01-111 (P.S.D. Sept. 7, 2001). Further, any dispute here was rendered moot by Petitioner’s submission of the change-of-address order. There is no requirement for a postmaster to issue a written Determination when a box is surrendered.
Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate, but the Petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), January 6, 2005, §508:4.6.2.