In the Matter of the Petition by: 

 ANN HATHAWAY
 PO Box 4974,
 Atlanta, GA  30302-4974,

 Notice of Intent to Close
 P. O. Box 5236,
 Cleveland, TN 37320-5236

 P.S. Docket No. 36/168

 12/10/90

 Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Ann Hathaway, P. O. Box 4974,
 Atlanta, GA 30302-4974 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jerry Belenker, Esq.,
 Consumer Protection Division,
 United States Postal Service, Washington, DC  20260-1144

Petitioner opposes the Postmaster's determination to close her post office box. In its answer to the petition the Postal Service argues that the determination was correct and that because the record shows no dispute as to any material facts the petition should be denied without an evidentiary hearing. In effect, the Postal Service moves for summary judgment in its favor under § 958.3(d) of the Rules of Practice.

By Order dated September 19, 1990, Ms. Hathaway was given the opportunity to oppose the motion by filing written opposition within 15 days following her receipt of the order. Such opposition was to include a statement as to whether, and on what specific grounds, she disputes the statements of the postmaster in his determination describing Ms. Hathaway's violation of sections 951.153 and 951.162 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The order of September 19 advised Petitioner that her failure to file opposition might result in the issuance of an initial decision upholding the postmaster's determination. Ms. Hathaway received the order on September 25, 1990. She has not complied with the order and has not opposed a decision on the record.

The record discloses no genuine material issues of fact. Therefore, an initial decision under § 958.3(d) of the Rules is appropriate.

1. Petitioner Ann Hathaway is the holder of P. O. Box 5236, Cleveland, TN 37320-5236.

2. Ms. Hathaway has not removed mail from this box for approximately three years. The resultant overflow has become an operational problem for the post office. The record shows no arrangement made by Ms. Hathaway with the postmaster to handle accumulations of mail.

3. Ms. Hathaway has failed to notify the post office of her current street address and telephone number as required on the box rent application and by DMM § 951.153.

4. Ms. Hathaway was notified of her violations of the DMM box use regulations in the postmaster's box closure determination of August 16, 1990, in which he stated that because of such violations he intended to close the box and return all accumulated mail. The determination advised Ms. Hathaway of her right to file with him a petition opposing the determination.

5. In her letter to the postmaster dated August 20, 1990, docketed as her petition, Ms. Hathaway does not deny the violations set forth in his determination. Rather, she mentions her involvement in a lawsuit against government officials who have been harrassing her in various ways. She mentions the illness of her parents and states that she is homeless in Atlanta. She requests the postmaster to leave the box open, to box her mail, and to hold it until her lawsuit is settled or until she has a home in Atlanta. Ms. Hathaway gives no indication when either of these things will occur.

Section 951.162 of the DMM requires box customers to remove mail promptly from their boxes and to make advance arrangements with the postmaster if mail is to accumulate for more than 30 days and an overflow condition is probable. Ms. Hathaway has allowed her mail to accumulate for about three years, creating an overflow problem, without making the required arrangements with the postmaster. She is, therefore, in violation of 951.62.

Section 951.153 of the DMM requires a box holder to file a revised box application (Form 1093) whenever any information on the form changes or becomes obsolete. It appears that information on Ms. Hathaway's box application as to street address and telephone number changed some time ago and that she has failed to file a revised application reporting these changes. Consequently, she has violated the regulations.

Unfortunately for Ms. Hathaway, none of the circumstances described in her petition excuses these violations. Therefore, the postmaster's determination to close P. O. Box 5236 was correct.

The petition is dismissed.