In the Matter of the Petition by GEORGE VANCE 215 West 23rd Street New York, NY 10011-2302 Termination of Post Office Box 637 P.S. Docket No. 21/38 August 6, 1985APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: George Vance, pro se 215 West 23rd Street New York, NY 10011-2302 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq. Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112 Mason, Randolph D.
Petitioner was officially notified by letter dated April 24, 1985, that his Post Office Box 637 at North Sioux City, SD would be terminated when the rental period expired. The Postmaster based this termination on his conclusion that petitioner had violated a regulation or contractual term or condition relating to the care or use of the box. Domestic Mail Manual § 951.82 c provides that a Postmaster may close a box under such circumstances. In this regard, the Postmaster stated that petitioner had violated DMM § 951.152 and that one of the reasons for the termination was as follows:
"(b) Failure to promptly remove mail for the aforementioned Post Office Box. When you received your mail last week there was mail postmarked as early as May 1981. The last time you were known to receive mail was Feb. 11, 1981."
The regulations clearly provide that boxholders must remove mail promptly from their boxes and that if mail is to accumulate for more than 30 days, specific arrangements must be made in advance with the Postmaster. DMM § 951.152 (a).
In his letter to the Postmaster dated May 6, 1985, which has been treated as an appeal, Petitioner did not dispute that he had failed to remove mail promptly from his box. Moreover, he admitted that when he went to pick up his mail he brought a military seabag, which shows that he anticipated a large accumulation.
Subsequently, Respondent Postal Service filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that Petitioner had failed to deny that his mail had not been promptly removed from the box. Although given an opportunity to do so, Petitioner failed to respond to this motion.
Accordingly, there is no dispute that Petitioner failed to promptly remove mail from his box. Therefore, the Postmaster was correct in determining that Petitioner had violated a provision of the regulations and his termination of the Post Office Box is sustained. DMM § 951.82 c. Since there is no genuine or material issue of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing, the Petition is dismissed. 39 CFR § 958.3(d).