In the Matter of the Petition by                        )  June 27, 1989
                                                         )
 STEVEN C. THOE                                          )
 P. O. Box 2181                                          )
 Independence, MO  64055-0081                            )
                                                         )
                                                         )
 Determination to Close P. O. Box 2181                   )  P.S. Docket No. 34/65

 

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
 Steven C. Thoe,
 P.O. Box 2181,
 Independence, MO 64055-0081 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Jerry Belenker, Esq.,
 Law Department,
 United States Postal Service,
 Washington, D.C.  20260-1144

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Steven C. Thoe on May 9, 1989, appealing the Postmaster's Determination dated April 10, 1989, to close P.O. Box 2181 at Independence, MO 64055-0081. The Postmaster determined that the box should be closed because Petitioner refuses to update his box application with a valid current address. Petitioner states that he is homeless, and argues that he is still entitled to use a post office box.

Respondent filed a Postal Service Answer to Appeal which contained a motion to dismiss the Petition. Thereafter the Administrative Law Judge gave the Petitioner an opportunity to respond and indicate whether any facts are in dispute. In response, Petitioner merely referred to his Petition. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would require an oral hearing, and a decision is now made upon the motion to dismiss.

1. Petitioner applied for a post office box on April 26, 1988, and was assigned Box 2181, Independence, MO. Petitioner's application contained the following street address: P.O. Box 2293, 17226 E. 40th St., Independence, MO 64055. The address was set forth under item 5 of the application (PS Form 1093), which requires: "Address (No., Street, City, State and ZIP Code. Record address change on reverse and line out below.)"

2. Petitioner no longer resides at the above address and states that he is "homeless."

3. Petitioner has failed to provide a current street address on his box application. On April 10, 1989, the Postmaster determined that P.O. Box 2181 should be closed unless the information was provided. Petitioner failed to do so and filed the instant Petition on May 9, 1989.

1. Section 951.141 of the Domestic Mail Manual ("DMM") provides that the refusal to furnish required information on the P.O. Box application (Form 1093) may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service. An applicant must complete all spaces on the form. Id. In addition, whenever any information required on Form 1093 changes or becomes obsolete, the box customer must file a revised application reflecting such changes. DMM § 951.153.

2. Since Petitioner failed to provide a current street address as required by item five on Form 1093, the Postmaster was correct in terminating Petitioner's box service.

3. Petitioner argues that an exception should be made because he is homeless. However, the Judicial Officer has held that the regulations do not provide any exception for a "homeless" person. Anthony E. Dibari, P.S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. January 24, 1985); William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 (P.S.D. December 31, 1986).

4. Petitioner also contends that for reasons of privacy he should not have to disclose his address because such information can be obtained by third persons from the Postal Service. However, the Judicial Officer has noted that the release of such information is limited to narrowly defined circumstances, and held that privacy considerations do not provide an excuse to the requirement to provide a street address on the application. Marlena Chandler, P.S. Docket No. 22/28 (P.S.D. March 17, 1986). Accordingly, this argument is also rejected.

5. Finally, Petitioner argues that the regulations should be changed to allow the homeless to acquire box service, and to provide for confidentiality of the customer's address when the latter is provided. These arguments are also rejected. The Administrative Law Judge is bound by the regulations of the Postal Service and has no jurisdiction to determine their validity.

6. The Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Determination of the Postmaster is sustained and the Petition is dismissed.