In the Matter of the Petition by:

 STEPHEN CROUSE,
 P.O. Box 1654,
 Levittown, PA  19058-1654;

 Notice of Intent to Close P.O.  Box 1654, Levittown, PA  19058-1654

 P.S. Docket No. 37/92

 POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON MOTION TO VACATE

 05/13/91

 Cohen, James A., Judicial Officer

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Stephen Crouse, P.O. Box 1654, Levittown, PA  19058-1654 

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

Petitioner has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge upholding the determination of the Levittown Postmaster to close P.O. Box 1654. The Postmaster's determination was based on a finding that Petitioner's use of the post office box violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 1342, and that therefore Petitioner was in violation of Domestic Mail Manual § 951.163(a), which prohibits the use a of post office box for or in connection with a scheme which violates any Federal, state or local law. Respondent filed a timely reply opposing Petitioner's appeal. The Administrative Law Judge found in the Initial Decision that Petitioner conducts a scheme in which he orders magazine subscriptions paid with checks drawn on bank accounts which either do not exist, have been closed, or have insufficient funds, and then cancels the subscriptions and requests a refund sent to the post office box address before the unpaid checks are returned from the banks. Petitioner did not dispute these facts before the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he do so on appeal. In his appeal to the Judicial Officer, Petitioner contends that he has made restitution and paid penalties, apparently voluntarily, to some or all of the companies which were victims of his scheme; that a post office box in Bristol, PA was improperly closed without giving Petitioner notice of his right to oppose the closing; that he has "compromised the matter out with the Consumer Protection Division of the U.S. Postal Service;" and that his prepayment of the subscriptions shows that he did not intend to use the post office box improperly. The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's use of the post office box violated the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual. The Administrative Law Judge properly concluded that Petitioner's payments to the companies victimized by his scheme and his allegation that another post office box was improperly closed have no bearing on the issue of the legality of Petitioner's use of P.O. Box 1654. Petitioner's assertion that he settled this matter with officials of the Consumer Protection Division is denied by Respondent and unsupported by the record. Petitioners argument that he did not intend to use the box improperly is not supported by the record, and is not credible. The Administrative Law Judge properly found that Petitioner's use of P.O. Box 1654 violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and that the Postmaster's closing of the box was proper under Domestic Mail Manual § 951.163 and 951.82. Accordingly, Petitioner's appeal is denied. By letter dated May 2, 1991, Petitioner has requested that the Postal Service Decision dated April 26, 1991, be vacated because he had requested a ten day extension to allow him to further supplement the record prior to the issuance of a final decision in this proceeding.

Following initiation of this proceeding, both parties elected to waive an oral hearing and to have the matter submitted on the record. On April 5, 1991, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he sustained the Levittown Postmaster's determination to close Post Office Box 1654. Thereafter, several pieces of correspondence were received from Petitioner, including a Brief of Appeal dated April 10, 1991, and an undated Brief of Appeal, both of which were received on April 15, 1991. The Postal Service filed a timely reply to the appeal on April 22, 1991, and the Postal Service Decision was issued on April 26, 1991. Subsequent to the issuance of the Postal Service Decision, Petitioner filed numerous additional pieces of correspondence in which he sought to rebut the Postal Service reply to his appeal and to argue that the post office box should not have been closed. Petitioner also requested an extension of time to supplement the record.

As is clear from the record, Petitioner's requests for an extension of time and his responses n1 to Respondent's opposition to his appeal were received after the issuance of the Postal Service Decision. Even if his requests for additional time to supplement the record had been received prior to the issuance of the Postal Service Decision, the additional time would not have been granted since Petitioner has not shown that the supplemental evidence could not have been presented to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the issuance of the Initial Decision.

n1 The Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to the Refusal to Provide Post Office Box or Caller Service and the Termination of Post Office Box or Caller Service, 39 C.F.R. Part 958, do not authorize a rebuttal statement after a reply to a brief on appeal has been filed. See 39 C.F.R. § 958.10.

Petitioner's correspondence continues to raise issues which were fully considered in both the Initial Decision and the Postal Service Decision. Petitioner's attempt to establish that he had paid for the subscriptions prior to their cancellation was explicitly rejected in the Postal Service Decision as not being credible. His additional filings establish no change of circumstance sufficient to provide a basis for revocation, amendment or modification of the Postal Service Decision. Accordingly, Petitioner's request that the Postal Service Decision be vacated is denied, and to the extent that Petitioner's correspondence could be interpreted as a motion for revocation, amendment or modification pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 958.13, that motion is also denied. Any further correspondence or motions from Petitioner will be placed in the record without response unless, in the judgment of the Judicial Officer, such correspondence presents credible evidence of changed circumstances which could support a petition to revoke, amend or modify the final Postal Service Decision issued April 26, 1991.