In the Matter of the Petition by: 

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

 Denial of Application for Renewal of Post Office Box

 P.S. Docket No. 37/120

 10/28/91

 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 has filed a motion to amend and correct the Postal Service Decision dated September 12, 1991, which affirmed an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge and denied Petitioner's request for reinstatement of P.O. Box

12705. The Postal Service Decision stated that the relief sought by Petitioner was neither provided for in the Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) nor within the authority of the Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer to grant.

In its motion Petitioner states that the Manager of the Creve Coeur Branch, St. Louis Post Office, refuses to rent a post office box to Petitioner unless Petitioner files a new form 1093, Application For Post Office Box Or Caller Service. As a result, Petitioner requests that an order be issued finding that its previously filed application is correctly filled out and directing the Postal Service to rent Petitioner a new box at the Creve Coeur Post Office without the need for filing a further application. Petitioner also contends in its motion that the September 12, 1991, Postal Service Decision contains a misstatement which should be corrected.

In opposition to the motion, Respondent asserts that Petitioner may not contest the rejection of its application for a new post office box until a written determination is issued.n1 Since such a determination is likely to be issued in the near future, Respondent requests that Petitioner's motion be dismissed without prejudice so that Petitioner may file a petition on receipt of the written determination.

n1 Although the postmaster issued a prior determination denying Petitioner's request for renewal of P.O. Box 12705, no determination was issued denying an application by Petitioner for rental of a new box.

Petitioner's motion is not well taken. Absent a written postmaster's determination denying Petitioner's application for a new post office box and Petitioner's appeal therefrom, neither an Administrative Law Judge nor the Judicial Officer has the authority to determine that a previously filed application was properly completed or that Petitioner is entitled to obtain a new post office box based on that application. See DMM § 951.141 & 951.831 and 39 C.F.R. $S958.2. On receipt of the postmaster's written determination denying Petitioner's application for a new post office box, Petitioner may file a petition for review in accordance with 39 C.F.R. Part 958.

Petitioner's contention that the Postal Service Decision contains a misstatement and should be corrected is also without merit. The findings and conclusions of the Initial Decision and Postal Service Decision are correct as written. Even if the correction suggested by Petitioner were to be made, the ultimate result would not be affected since it was properly concluded in both the Initial Decision and the Postal Service Decision that Petitioner was seeking relief which could not be granted.

Based on a review of the record and Petitioner's arguments in support of its motion, it is determined that no basis exists for correcting or amending the Postal Service Decision issued September 12, 1991. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is denied.