In the Matter of the Petition by:

 JERRY SARGENT,
 251 E Avenue, P-1,
 Palmdale, CA 93550-9763;

 Determination to Close P.O. Box 109, Vermillion, SD

 P.S. Docket No. 31/182

 11/29/88

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
 Jerry Sargent, pro se,
 251 E Avenue, P-1,
 Palmdale, CA 93550-9763 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq.,
 Law Department,
 U. S. Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-1144

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Jerry Sargent on September 27, 1988 appealing the Postmaster's Determination of September 1, 1988 to close his post office box. The Postmaster determined that the box should be closed because it was being used for the sole purpose of having mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service free of charge. On October 18, 1988, Respondent Postal Service filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Respondent contends that the Petitioner's contention that he plans to return to Vermillion, SD by October 6, 1988, has been refuted by his failure to return, that the contention has no merit in any event, and that there is no question of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing. In an order dated October 21, 1988, which has been received by Petitioner, the latter was given an opportunity to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. In addition Petitioner was instructed by the Administrative Law Judge to respond specifically to the following allegations by the Postmaster:

(a) Customer for the past three years has come back to Vermillion for 3 weeks in August, cancels the temp forward and then 3 weeks later files another temp change for 49 weeks.

(b) Customer does not have a residence in Vermillion, SD.

Petitioner has failed to respond to the Order dated October 21, 1988. Accordingly, Petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the intention to present a defense.

Domestic Mail Manual § 951.82 provides that a Postmaster may close a post office box when the boxholder has violated any regulation or contractual term or condition relating to the use of the box. DMM § 951.154 provides:

Petitioner does not dispute the Postmaster's allegation that for the past three years Petitioner has returned to Vermillion for 3 weeks in August, canceled his previous temporary forwarding instruction, and at the end of each visit filed another temporary change of address order for 49 weeks. He also does not dispute the fact that he does not have a residence in Vermillion, SD. Since Petitioner failed to respond to these allegations as required by the Order dated October 21, 1988, these allegations are deemed admitted and are found as facts. Also, Petitioner filed an indefinite change of address order (from Vermillion to Palmdale, CA) on August 22, 1988. Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner has been using his mail box in Vermillion for the sole purpose of having his mail forwarded free of charge in violation of § 951.154. Petitioner's only contention is that he is "planning on returning to Vermillion on October 6, 1988." Respondent contends that he did not return. However, even if he had returned, this would not, by itself, alter the result in this case. The fact remains that Petitioner has violated the regulations and the Postmaster was justified in closing his post office box in accordance with DMM § 951.154 and § 951.82. There is no material issue of fact in dispute which would require an oral hearing. In view of the above findings and conclusions, the Postmaster's Determination is sustained and the Motion to Dismiss the Petition is granted. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.