In the Matter of the Petition by:

 PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC.,
 625 N. New Ballas #200,
 St. Louis, MO  63141-6713;

 Denial of Application for Renewal of Post Office Box 12705

 P.S. Docket No. 37/120

 09/12/91

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCES FOR PETITIONER: R. Jacobs, M. Dillard, 625 N. New Ballas #200,
 St. Louis, MO  63141-6713 

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

Petitioner, Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge in which its Petition was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Respondent did not file a response to the appeal.

Petitioner rented Post Office Box 12705 at Creve Coeur Branch, St. Louis Post Office, from sometime in 1982 until March of 1990, when the box was closed and considered surrendered for nonpayment of rental fees, in accordance with Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 951.32(b) (I.D., Finding of Fact (FOF) ## 1, 8 & 9). On discovering that Box 12705 had been closed, Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to obtain return of the box by tendering payment of rental fees and thereafter filing a new application (I.D., FOF ##4 & 5). However, the box was subsequently rented to another customer pursuant to DMM $S951.35, which provides that a surrendered box may be issued to another customer eleven days after the rental fee due date (I.D., FOF ##6, 8 & 9).

In December 1990, Petitioner subsequently requested that the Postmaster of the St. Louis Post Office issue a determination that Petitioner was entitiled to the return of P.O. Box 12705. By letter dated December 13, 1990, the Postmaster notified Petitioner that a determination had been made that the box had been surrendered for failure to pay rental fees and that the box had been issued to another customer, but that Petitioner could rent another box by filing a correct application and tendering payment of the box fee (I.D., FOF #9).

Within 20 days after receipt of the Postmaster's letter, Petitioner filed a petition for the return of P.O. Box 12705 alleging that the Postal Service improperly surrendered its right to the box without notifying it that payment was due,erroneously rejected its offer of payment of the overdue rental fee, improperly declined its requests and application to renew its box rental, and erroneously awarded rental of the box to a new customer during the period Petitioner was seeking renewal of the box. In addition to requesting reinstatement of Box 12705, Petitioner also requested that a reprimand be issued against the Creve Coeur Station Manager.

Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations contained in the Petition and affirmatively asserting that since the box had already been rented to another customer, the relief sought by Petitioner could not be provided. Thereafter, each party filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 8, 1991, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision rejecting Petitioner's allegations as moot and dismissing the Petition for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

In its appeal to the Judicial Officer, Petitioner contends that the Administrative Law Judge improperly delayed the issuance of his decision until after April 26, 1991, the anniversary date of the rental to the current boxholder, and in addition failed to make numerous factual findings in Petitioner's favor. In its demand for relief, Petitioner requests that it be issued a new box at the Creve Coeur Branch without having to file a new application, that it receive reinstatement of P.O. Box 12705 on April 26, 1992, when the current boxholder's rental expires, and that it be granted automatic forwarding on an indefinite basis. Finally Petitioner seeks a determination with respect to its entitlement to costs associated with the loss of use of the box and the authority of the Administrative Law Judge to recommend disciplinary action.

Petitioner's appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds that it was requesting relief which could not be granted. In making this determination, the Administrative Law Judge properly concluded that even if Petitioner's renewal request had been incorrectly denied, Postal Service regulations do not provide for the return of a post office box to a former boxholder after the box has been issued to another customer. See DMM § 951.32-951.85. Although the rental of a disputed post office box is to be stayed pending an appeal of a postmaster's determination to terminate a box rental, no remedy exists where, as here, a box has been determined to be surrendered and subsequently rented to another postal customer. See DMM § 951.82-951.84; 39 C.F.R. § 958.2. Consequently, even if all factual inferences are interpreted in Petitioner's favor, the ultimate conclusion of the Initial Decision n1 remains unaffected since Petitioner's request for reinstatement of its box rental and all other relief requested are neither provided for in the DMM nor within the authority of the Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer to grant.

n1 Since the Administrative Law Judge could not have ordered the return of Box 12705 to Petitioner, the issuance of the Initial Decision after the one year anniversary of the surrender and rerental of the box did not prejudice Petitioner. Further in light of the papers being filed, there was no improper delay in issuing the Initial Decision.

Accordingly, the record supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Petition fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Therefore, the appeal from the Initial Decision is denied.