In the Matter of the Petition by November 20, 1985 MARLENA CHANDLER P. O. Box 824 Park Forest, IL 60466-0824 Proposed Termination of Box Service for P.O. Box 824 P.S. Docket No. 22/28APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Nan M. Kalthoff, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department U. S. Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, DC 20260-1112 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Marlena Chandler, pro se P. O. Box 824 Park Forest, IL 60466-0824
Mason, Randolph D.
This proceeding was initiated by the filing of a Petition and Second Petition by Marlena Chandler ("Petitioner") dated August 3 and 12, 1985, respectively, opposing the Postmaster's Determination dated July 17, 1985, terminating P. O. Box 824, Park Forest, IL. Respondent filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss on September 6, 1985, alleging that the pleadings present no genuine or material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing and requesting the Administrative Law Judge to render an initial decision dismissing the Petition as amended, under 39 C.F.R. § 958.3(d). Thereafter, Petitioner continued to request an evidentiary hearing but failed to demonstrate the existence of any relevant factual dispute. Accord ingly, it is appropriate to decide this case by means of a summary judgment based upon the undisputed facts of record.
1. When Petitioner applied for P.O. Box 824 on January 31, 1983, she stated that her address was 701-6 Spring Court, Park Forest South, IL 60466.
2. On February 23, 1983, Petitioner stated to the Postmaster that she was "presently still at the 701-6 Spring Court address" but that she wished to have all of her mail placed in P. O. Box 824. The Postmaster complied with that request.
3. On May 14, 1985, Petitioner submitted and updated her application for P. O. Box 824 stating that her address was still 701-6 Spring Court, University Park Park Forest South , IL 60466.
4. On June 10, 1985, the Postmaster informed Petitioner that her box would be closed unless she submitted a current, verifiable home address. Thereafter, on June 22, 1985, Petitioner simply stated that her "legal address" was still 701-6 Spring Court, University Park, IL.
5. On July 17, 1985, the Postmaster at Park Forest, IL, informed Petitioner that he was terminating service to P. O. Box 824 under Domestic Mail Manual § 951.82(a) in view of Petitioner's failure to provide her "current physical address" on her post office box application. Section 951.82(a) provides that a postmaster may close a post office box when the boxholder has falsified the appli cation for the box.
6. In her "Petition" dated August 3, 1985, Petitioner continues to allege that her legal address is 701-6 Spring Court, but admits that she does not actually reside there. She wishes to maintain P. O. Box 824 without revealing the address of her actual residence, in part, to conceal the identity of people with whom she lives and to allow the Postal Service to conduct an investigation of alleged illegal use of her box. Subsequently, on August 12, 1985, Peti tioner reiterated that she did not reside at the address set forth on her post office box application.
1. The only issue presented for decision is whether the Post master properly determined that the Petitioner's post office box should be closed due to her failure to provide a "current physical address" on her post office box application. Domestic Mail Manual § 951.131(a) provides that furnishing false information on the appli cation or refusal to furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service. In the instant case, the Postmaster had reason to doubt the Peti tioner's statement on her May 14, 1985 application that she resided at the 701-6 Spring Court address, and specifically requested that she provide her current physical address. The post office box application requires the applicant to provide her address.
In response, Petitioner refused to provide the address of her actual residence, and argued that 701-6 Spring Court should be considered her "legal address" even though she did not reside there.
2. Petitioner has furnished false information on the application and has refused to furnish her actual address to the Postmaster. This constitutes sufficient reason for discontinuance of service. DMM § 951.131(a). Petitioner appears to be arguing that she should not be required to provide this address in view of her desire to conceal the identity of the people with whom she lives, and her request for a Postal Service investigation of alleged illegal use of her box. However, the regulations do not provide for any exceptions to the requirement that an applicant furnish the address of his residence. Accordingly, the Postmaster's determi nation to close P. O. Box 824 is upheld.
3. For the reasons set forth above the instant Petition is dismissed.