In the Matter of the Petition by    ) March 17, 1986
 				     )
 MARLENA CHANDLER 		     )
 P. O. Box 824			     )
 Park Forest, IL 60466-0824 	     )
 			   	     )
 			             )
 Proposed Termination of Box Service ) P.S. Docket No. 22/28
 for P. O. Box 824 		     )

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Jerry Belenker, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 U. S. Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
 Marlena Chandler
 P. O. Box 824
 Park Forest, IL 60466-0824

 Cohen, James A.  

Petitioner has filed a timely appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge, upholding a determination by the Postmaster at Park Forest, Illinois, to close P. O. Box 824. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Postmaster's action based on his finding that the undisputed facts of record established that Petitioner had furnished false information on her updated application for post office box service in violation of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 951.131(a).

As found by the Administrative Law Judge, there is no genuine issue of material fact. The record reveals that on May 14, 1985,

Petitioner filed an updated application for service to P. O. Box 824, Park Forest, Illinois. The application listed 701-6 Spring Court, Park Forest South, Illinois 60466 as her current address. The Postmaster, having reason to doubt that Petitioner resided at that address, informed Petitioner that P. O. Box 824 would be closed unless by June 21, 1985, a current address was provided.

Following Petitioner's refusal to furnish an address other than 701-6 Spring Court, the Postmaster, on July 17, l985, terminated service to the post office box. In two petitions opposing the Postmaster's determination, Petitioner admitted that she no longer resided at the Spring Court address, but argued it was her legal address and that it was not necessary for her to reveal her current address due to the investigation of an alleged illegal use of the box and because the people she was residing with preferred to remain anonymous.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Petitioner had furnished false information on her application for continuation of post office box service and that she had refused to furnish her actual address to the Postmaster. He therefore concluded that under the provisions of the DMM the termination of post office box service to Petitioner was justified.

In her appeal, Petitioner has simply restated the positions previously taken. Petitioner contends that it was important to list 701-6 Spring Court on her updated box application "to leave information incoming intact" regarding vaguely described ongoing investigations. Further, Petitioner contends that she cannot reveal her current address "to protect innocent persons." Finally, she contends that the 701-6 Spring Court address is "legally verifiable" because she made a purchase application for the property in 1981, even though she admits that she no longer resides there.

Petitioner's arguments are without merit. Even if investigations of the type described by Petitioner are taking place, they would not be compromised by the inclusion of her current address on a post office box application. (See § 352.44(e) of the Postal Service Administrative Support Manual which limits release of a boxholder's name or address to narrowly defined circumstances). Moreover, such investigations do not take precedence over applicable Postal Service regulations. Finally, there is no basis for Petitioner's contention that a four-year old purchase application somehow confers legal entitlement to use 701-6 Spring Court as her permanent address.

Petitioner's use of the 701-6 Spring Court address on the post office box application constitutes the furnishing of false information in violation of DMM § 951.131a, and is proper justification for the termination of Petitioner's post office box privileges under DMM § 951.82. Accordingly, the appeal from the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge is denied.