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 April 21, 1986 Randolph D. Mason Administrative Law Judge 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, D.C. 20260-1112
This proceeding was initiated by the filing of a Petition by Homere Rousseau ("Petitioner") dated January 17, 1986, opposing the Superintendent's Determination dated January 16, 1986, terminating P.O. Box 228, Mattapan, MA 02126-0002. Respondent filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss on January 29, 1986, alleging that the plead- ings 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 under 39 C.F.R. 958.3(d). Thereafter, Petitioner filed an "Election as to Hearing" under 39 C.F.R. 958.5, in which he agreed to waive an oral hearing and submit the matter for decision on the basis of the appeal, answer, and other evidence previously submitted. Upon consideration of the entire record, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. On his Application for Post Office Box, PS Form 1093, Peti- tioner recorded his address as "765 Morton Street, Mattapan, Mass. 02126." This information was recorded under item 5 on the form which requested "Address (No. Street, City, State, ZIP CODE. Record Address Change on Reverse and Line Out Address below.)" (Exh. I).
2. On December 28, 1985, the Superintendent of the Mattapan Post Office informed Petitioner that it had been determined that 765 Morton Street is the address of General Business Co., and that Mr. Rousseau and his company are not associated with General Business Co. It was concluded that Petitioners are merely using that address as a mailing address. (Exh. II). The owner of General Business Co., Claude R. Hyppolite, states that Mr. Rousseau is not an official or employee of his company, although he has known him for over 30 years. Mr. Hyppolite gave Mr. Rousseau permission to use 765 Morton Street as his "mailing address" (Exh. V).
3. The December 28, 1985 letter from the Superintendent gave Petitioner the opportunity to provide "a verifiable address of residence." Petitioner failed to supply such an address, and the Superintendent issued a Determination letter dated January 16, 1986, terminating Petitioner's box service. In the letter he stated that Domestic Mail Manual 951.131 requires that all applicants for post office box service must provide a correct address. He stated that the address given by Petitioner on the Box Application was false and that Petitioner had failed to furnish a verifiable address. Accordingly, he terminated the box service under DMM 951.82.
4. Petitioner responded, in pertinent part, that "the mailman knows about and saw me there and . . . the best way to wait is in a mailbox to avoid privacy violations . . . ." (Petition).
5. Although Petitioner seems to argue that 765 Morton Street is his actual business address, the evidence is to the contrary. On January 2, 1986, Petitioner wrote to Mr. Hyppolite and stated "If you ever receive any mail for me please do not open it. Just put post office box 228, Mattapan Square Station Boston 02126" (Exh. IV). Mr. Hyppolite merely allowed him to use his business address as a "mailing address," and Petitioner did not work or reside at that address (Exh. V).
1. The only issue presented for decision is whether the Superintendent properly determined that the Petitioner's post office box should be closed because he provided a false address on his post office box application and subsequently failed to provide a veri- fiable address when requested to do so. Domestic Mail Manual 951.131a 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.
2. Based on the evidence presented, it is concluded that Peti- tioner has neither worked nor resided at the street address provided on the application. Since he has furnished false information on the application and has refused to furnish his actual address, it is concluded that the discontinuance of service was appropriate. DMM 951.131a. It appears that Petitioner's refusal to provide his actual street address is based upon considerations of privacy; however, the regulations do not provide an exception for those who decline to give their street address for such reason. Marlena Chandler , P.S. Docket No. 22/28 (P.S.D. March 17, 1986).
3. For the reasons set forth above, the instant Petition is dismissed.