In the Matter of the Petition by May 6, 1992 PAUL AKERLUND, JR. 130 Midcrest Way San Francisco, CA 94131-1240 Refusal to Rent Post Office Box at Monte Rio, CA P. S. Docket No. 39/34 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Paul Akerlund, Jr., Pro Se 130 Midcrest Way San Francisco, CA 94131-1240APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: H. Richard Hefner, Esq., Law Department Consumer Protection Division United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1144
This proceeding arises out of a Petition dated March 18, 1992, appealing a Determination of the Postmaster of Monte Rio, CA. The Postmaster refused to provide Petitioner with a Post Office Box on the grounds that Petitioner had violated Postal regulations by using his previous box solely for the purpose of having his mail forwarded, and by allowing an unreasonable accumulation of mail to occur. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of fact exists. Petitioner filed a response to the Motion which disputes the conclusion that a violation occurred, but which essentially agrees with sufficient facts to support a Summary Judgment in favor of Respondent. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the pleadings and documents attached thereto.
1. After purchasing a home in Monte Rio, CA, Petitioner rented P.O. Box 405, Monte Rio, CA, in December of 1988.
2. In January, 1989, he filed a permanent Change of Address Form 3575 requesting that his mail be forwarded to an address in Indiana.
3. He returned from Indiana in July, 1989, and cancelled the above request.
4. Thereafter, he resided in Oakland, CA, and requested by Change of Address form that his mail be temporarily forwarded to his Oakland address. His job as a psychologist with the State of California required long hours in San Francisco and weekend work, so he was unable to return to the Monte Rio residence on a frequent basis.
5. During this time, he allowed his third-class, nonforwardable mail to accumulate at the Monte Rio Post Office. Accordingly, the Postmaster wrote him a letter on about November 19, 1990, advising Petitioner of the accumulation problem and also of the fact that the use of a Post Office box for continual forwarding could jeopardize the renewal of his box.
6. On January 9, 1991, the Postmaster wrote Petitioner again and advised him of the accumulation of a large amount of mail which was taking up substantial space at the Post Office. He asked Petitioner to make arrangements to have the mail picked up, advised him of the Saturday hours, and even offered to meet Petitioner at the Post Office at a time convenient to Petitioner for the purpose of delivering this mail.
7. Petitioner failed to respond, so the Postmaster boxed the accumulated mail and sent it to Petitioner at his own expense.
8. In February 1991 Petitioner recognized the "nature of the [accumulation] problem" and agreed to "make every effort to empty the contents of the box in a more timely manner in the future."
9. On December 1, 1991, the Postmaster closed P.O. Box 405 for failure to pay rent. At that time a large amount of nonforwardable mail had again accumulated.
10. On February 15, 1992, Petitioner filed a third Change of Address Order with the Monte Rio Post Office requesting that his mail be forwarded to 130 Midcrest Way, San Francisco, CA, which is Petitioner's current address printed on his stationery. On the same date, Petitioner applied for a new Post Office Box at Monte Rio.
11. On March 3, 1992, the Postmaster issued the Determination letter denying Petitioner's request to rent a new P.O. Box. In finding a violation of Domestic Mail Manual § 951.164, he stated:
During the two [sic] years that you rented P.O. Box 405 in Monte Rio, you filed consecutive PS Forms 3575's to have your mail forwarded. This box was never used as a source for mail delivery, but only as an address from which mail was forwarded.
The Postmaster also cited the accumulation of nonforwardable mail during the same period as another reason for his Determination. The letter did not cite the applicable section of the Domestic Mail Manual, § 951.143, pertaining to accumulations of mail.
A postmaster may refuse to issue a Post Office box if, within two years immediately preceding the submission of the application, the applicant violated a regulation relating to the use of a box. DMM § 951.81. The first issue here is whether Petitioner violated DMM § 951.164 during that period. The regulation provides as follows:
Forwarding. Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, by subsequently filing change-of-address orders, to have mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service, free of charge.
Petitioner does not dispute the Postmaster's allegation that the box was rarely, if ever, actually used to receive mail, and that at almost all times during the two year period prior to the current application, the Petitioner had requested that his mail be forwarded to another address.
Petitioner first argues that he did not violate the regulation because he was not seeking to have the mail forwarded free of charge, and in fact would have paid for this service. However, the fact remains that Petitioner did use the box almost exclusively for the purpose of having his mail forwarded to various other addresses, and whether he was willing to pay extra for forwarding - a service for which the Postal Service does not charge - is irrelevant.
Petitioner next argues that he is not using his box for the sole purpose of forwarding mail free of charge because he has notified correspondents of his temporary addresses so that he can receive mail in a timely manner (Response, p. 3). However, this apparently does not pertain to a large amount of mail which he has sent to his Monte Rio post office box, with respect to which he determined the "best course of action was to have [it] forwarded to the San Francisco address, so that I could deal with my business matters in a timely manner" (Id., p. 1). In any event, it is clear that Petitioner used his box as a forwarding device during the two years preceding the application.
Accordingly, it is concluded that Petitioner's continual use of change-of-address orders for the purpose of forwarding his mail to his other addresses constituted a violation of DMM § 951.164. The Postmaster's Determination to deny Petitioner's request for a new post office box may be upheld on this basis alone.
Moreover, Section 951.162 provides that box customers must remove the mail promptly from their boxes, and if mail is to accumulate for more than 30 days and an overflow condition is probable, specific arrangements must be made in advance with the postmaster. In 1990 Petitioner was requested to make arrangements to have his nonforwardable mail picked up but failed to do so. He also clearly knew about the problem during 1991, but still failed to take action. His mail accumulated to such an extent that the postmaster had no place to store it. Accordingly, he clearly violated this regulation as well.
Accordingly, the Postmaster's Determination to refuse to issue a post office box is upheld and the Petition is hereby dismissed.
Randolph D. Mason Administrative Law Judge