In the Matter of the Petition by                      )  July 21, 1989
                                                      )
LOU GUIMOND                                           )
P. O. Box 947                                         )
Darien, CT  06820-0947                                )
   and at                                             )
P. O. Box 991                                         )
Darien, CT  06820-0947                                )
                                                      )
                                                      )
Determination to Close Post Office Boxes              )  P.S. Docket No. 34/95



 Grant, Quentin E., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
 Lou Guimond,
 P.O. Box 947,
 Darien, CT 06820-0947
 and
 P.O. Box 991,
 Darien, CT 06820-0991 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 H. Richard Hefner, Esq.,
 Consumer Protection Division,
 Law Department, U.S. Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-1114

Petitioner has moved for summary judgment and Respondent has included in its answer, filed with the Recorder on June 7, 1989, a motion to dismiss the petition. By order dated June 9, 1989, Petitioner was given go June 24, 1989, to file a written response to the facts asserted in the Postal Service's answer. To date such response has not been filed.

There appears to be no genuine issue of material fact which would require a hearing. Therefore, a decision on the motions based on the documents filed by the parties is appropriate.

1. As the result of a complaint received from a postal customer, the Postmaster at Darien, CT, appropriately requested Petitioner Lou Guimond to fill out new applications (PS Form 1093) for P.O. Boxes 947 and 991, to update information called for on the application including the furnishing of a verifiable address. Updating of such information is required by Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 952.183.

2. Mr. Guimond at first returned the applications without entering any information, taking the position that he had provided such information twenty years earlier. Thereafter, Mr. Guimond submitted forms 1093 but without filling in certain required items and giving P.O. Boxes 947 and 991 as his address in item 5 instead of a street number, city, state, and ZIP Code as called for.

3. In a respone dated April 27, 1989, to another request by the postmaster (by letter dated April 24, 1989), petitioner furnished in item 5 of the applications, under protest, the address Tommy's Lane, Vista, NY 10590. The response to request for verification of this address to the Postmaster at South Salem, NY (in charge of delivery to Vista, NY) was "unknown at that address."

4. Upon receipt of the response from the South Salem Postmaster, the Darien Postmaster informed Mr. Guimond that the Vista, NY address could not be verified. Thereupon, Mr. Guimond furnished the address 15 Nash Place, Norwalk, CT 06854. The response to a request for verification of this address to the Superintendent of Postal Operations at Norwalk was that "Louis Guimond does not reside at 15 Nash Place. His correct address is Shorefront Park, Norwalk, CT 06854."

5. On May 8, 1989, the Darien Postmaster issued a determination denying Mr. Guimond's applications for P.O. Boxes 947 and 991 advising him that the boxes would be closed on June 30, 1989, unless he provided by that date a change of address order for both boxes. The determination was based on Mr. Guimond's failure to comply with postal regulations applicable to PS Form 1093 and, specifically, for providing two addresses which could not be verified.

6. Mr. Guimond elected to file the petition, herein, dated May 12, 1989, opposing the determination rather than furnishing change of address orders for the boxes. The petition stated that the Form 1093s furnished with Mr. Guimond's letter of April 27 (Finding of Fact 3, above) contained his correct address.

DMM 951.82 (TERMINATION OF SERVICE) provides that a postmaster may close a post office box where the box customer has falsified the application for the box. Petitioner has twice furnished unverifiable addresses on box applications. The postmaster, therefore, acted in accordance with this regulation when he issued his determination dated May 8, 1989, to close the boxes.

Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is denied. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is granted.

Petitioner is advised that this decision does not prevent him from obtaining post office boxes if and when he presents new applications containing the required verifiable information including a correct residential or business address (DMM § 951.142(b)(2).