In the Matter of the Petition by HOMERE ROUSSEAU NEEDWORK MANUFACTURING COMPANY P. O. Box 228 Mattapan, MA 02126-0002 Termination of Service for P. O. Box 228 P.S. Docket No. 23/33 June 30, 1986 James A. Cohen Judicial Officer APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Homere Rousseau P. O. Box 228 Mattapan, MA 02126-0002 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jerry Belenker, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112
Petitioner has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge upholding the determination of the Postal Superintendent at Mattapan Post Office to terminate service to P.O. Box 228, Mattapan, Massachusetts 02126-0002. The termination was based on a finding that Petitioner had furnished a false address on a post office box application in violation of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 951.131(a).
In filling out an Application for Post Office Box, PS Form 1093, Petitioner listed his address as 765 Morton Street, Mattapan, Massachusetts 02126. The validity of this information was challenged by the Superintendent of the Mattapan Post Office in a letter to the Petitioner dated December 28, 1985. The Superintendent stated that, according to information available to the Postal Service, 765 Morton Street was the address of the General Business Company and that neither Petitioner nor his company, Needwork Manufacturing, had any association with the General Business Company, other than receiving mail there. Peti tioner was advised that unless he provided a verifiable address of residence within fifteen days of receipt of the letter, service to his postal box would be terminated. Since no response had been received from Petitioner by January 16, 1986, the Superintendent issued a Determination finding Petitioner in violation of DMM § 951.131 for providing false information on his application.
This Determination was upheld by the Administrative Law Judge in his decision of April 21, 1986. In support of his finding that the address on Petitioner's application was falsified, the Administrative Law Judge cited the sworn statement of Claude R. Hyppolite, owner of the General Business Company, confirming that the Petitioner was not associated in any capacity with the General Business Company and was only using 765 Morton Street as a mailing address. The Administrative Law Judge also found that Petitioner's refusal to provide his correct address appeared to be based on privacy considerations, but that there was no exception in the Postal Service regulations for a refusal based on that reason.
On May 1, 1986, Petitioner filed a document entitled "On Appeal and Further to the Federal Courts and Furthermore to the Supreme Court of the United States." Respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner's Appeal on May 6, 1986, stating that it could find no issue of law or fact in Petitioner's appeal document, and there fore requesting that a final Postal Service Decision be issued sustaining the Initial Decision.
The entire record has been reviewed including Petitioner's appeal and the correspondence which he has filed subsequent to the issuance of the Initial Decision. Most of this correspondence expresses only a general dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Initial Decision and a further restatement of Petitioner's request for post office boxes in all 50 states and free postal service for 25 years.
Nowhere does the Petitioner deny the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the address furnished on the application for P. O. Box 228 was false. Instead, in a letter dated May 10, 1986, Petitioner sought to justify his action by explaining that it was necessary "to eliminate any conspiracy that could embarrass the process of justice." This allegation has not been supported by any evidence from the Petitioner, nor has any support therefor been found in the record. Even if proven, such an allegation would provide no excuse under the Postal Service regulations for failure to list a correct address on a postal box application. Petitioner further alludes to a "conflict of interest" in his letter of May 12, 1986, but this allegation, even if proven, would not justify his failure to list his correct address. See Marlena Chandler, P.S. Docket No. 22/28 (P.S.D. March 17, l986).
The record supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Petitioner furnished a false address on a post office box application in violation of DMM § 951.131(a). Accordingly, the appeal from the Initial Decision is denied.