In the Matter of the Petition By: CLAUDE ROTHGIESSER, P O Box 8110, La Jolla, CA 92038-8110; Notice of Determination to Close P. O. Box 8110, La Jolla, CA 92038-8110 P.S. Docket No. 36/170 11/9/90 Grant, Quentin, E., Chief Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Claude Rothgiesser, Pro Se, PO Box 8110, La Jolla, CA 92038-8110 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jerry Belenker, Esq., Consumer Protection Division, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1144
INITIAL DECISION
Petitioner opposes the Postmaster's determination terminating box service. 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. There are no genuine or material issues of subsidiary facts and Petitioner has not objected to decision on the record under § 958.3(d) of the Rules of Practice. Therefore, the matter is appropriate for initial decision under that rule.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner Claude Rothgiesser has been the holder of P. O. Box 8110 at La Jolla, CA 92038 since 1985. At the time he first rented the box he resided in San Diego, CA.
2. In February 1988 Mr. Rothgiesser was transferred by his employer to Canada where he has since resided.
3. Beginning in February 1988, Petitioner filed numerous change of address orders with the La Jolla Postmaster directing the forwarding of mail addressed to various names at P. O. Box 8110 to various addresses in Canada. The names involved are Claude Rothgiesser, Vista Nova, Inc. [Claude M. Rothgiesser, President], Anita Pierce, and Transworld.
4. The various change of address orders received by the Postmaster related to Box 8110 are as follows:
Effective date Name(s) affected New address
a. 2/15/88 (Temporary) Vista Nova 203 Glenayr Road
Claude Rothgiesser Toronto, Canada
Anita Pierce
b. 6/11/88 (Permanent) Vista Nova, Inc. 203 Glenayr Road
Anita Pierce Toronto, Canada
c. 6/24/88 (Temporary) Vista Nova, Inc. 37 Tofino Crescent
Anita Pierce North York, Canada
Transworld
d. 10/20/88 to 9/20/89 Claude Rothgiesser 37 Tofino Crescent
North York, Canada
e. 12/1/89 (Permanent) Vista Nova 37 Tofino Crescent
Rothgiesser North York, Canada
Pierce
5. In early August 1990 the Postmaster issued a notice of determination that the box customer at P. O. Box 8110 was in violation of Section 951.164 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) in that for a period of 2 1/2, years by reason of the numerous change of address orders filed, it had become obvious that the sole purpose of the use of the box was to have mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service, free of charge. Subject to petition opposing the determination, the notice stated that, pursuant to § 951.82 of the DMM, service to Box 8110 would close at the end of the current rental period, August 1, 1990, and that renewal of the box was denied.
6. By letter dated August 17, 1990, docketed as a petition by the Recorder on August 30, Mr. Rothgiesser opposed the foregoing determination. The second paragraph of his petition reads as follows:
"I have explained on numerous occasions to your postmaster, Mr. Lockhead, and his staff that I have been transferred to Canada and that I still own my house in San Diego that is rented out. It is therefore very possible that I will return to reside in the La Jolla area. I have rented this P. O. Box since 1985, and all U. S. and California tax return forms and other important U. S. documents are sent to this P. O. Box."
7. In his letter dated October 3, 1990, responding to an order dated September 20, Petitioner denies that the sole purpose of using the box is to have mail forwarded, states that his primary residence is San Diego, that he has been temporarily transferred by his company to Canada, and that there are certain documents such as U. S. and California tax returns that require a U. S. mailing address. Petitioner admits that mail addressed to Box 8110 has been forwarded to Canadian addresses for 2 1/2 years.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The record refutes Petitioner's denial that the sole purpose of using the box is to have mail forwarded by the Postal Service. By itself, the admitted 2 1/2 years of use of the box under numerous change of address orders, some of which were permanent, reflects such a purpose. Certainly, in that period reasonable efforts by Petitioner should have resulted in notification of all correspondents, including tax authorities. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, there is no requirement that he have a U. S. mailing address for tax return purposes. Tax return instructions make specific provision for use of foreign addresses (See, for example, 1989 I.R.S. 1040 Instructions, p. 7). Further reflection of mail forwarding as the sole usage purpose is the possibility indicated in Petitioner's letter of August 17 that he may never return to the La Jolla area (Finding 6, above). Also Petitioner does not claim to have made any pick-up of mail from Box 8110 since he moved to Canada.
Beyond Petitioner's obvious violation of § 951.164 of the DMM, there are other reasons for upholding the determination not to renew service. Section 159.213 of the DMM places a time limit of one year on forwarding mail to customers who move temporarily. A one year extension is available to a boxholder who has, during the initial year notified the post office of a permanent change of mailing address provided he shows economic or financial hardship ensuing from a denial of the extension and reasonable efforts to notify correspondents of the new permanent address. Petitioner has failed to make the required showings in connection with any extension given him. Therefore, he is certainly not entitled to use of the box for any additional extension.
DMM § 951.85 provides that a post office box will be deemed to have been surrendered when the box customer submits a permanent change-of-address order. Permanent change of address orders were filed by Petitioner effective 6/11/88 and 12/1/89.
The Postmaster's determination not to renew service to Petitioner at Box 8110 was correct for the reasons he stated and for the additional reasons outlined above. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.