Appeal of P. S. Docket No. 39/33 -- CHARLES P. PAGE, President, PAGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

In the Matter of the Petition by:       ) April 21, 1993
                                        )
CHARLES P. PAGE, President              )
PAGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION          )
P.O. Box 6294                           )
at                                      )
Venice, FL  34292-0894                  )
                                        )
Notice of Intent to Close P.O. Box      )
7227 at Nashua, NH                      ) P. S. Docket No. 39/33


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:              Charles P. Page, President
                                        Page International Corporation
                                        P. O. Box 6294
                                        Venice, FL  34292-0894

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

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Charles P. Page (Petitioner) has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which affirmed the determination of the Nashua Postmaster to close Post Office Box 7227, Nashua, NH 03060-7227. The Initial Decision granted the United States Postal Service's (Respondent) motion for summary judgment because Petitioner had been using the post office box solely to have mail forwarded to other addresses in violation of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 951.164. Petitioner contends the Initial Decision is erroneous and that the matter should be referred to the Postmaster General for resolution. Respondent has not filed a response to Petitioner's appeal from the Initial Decision.

Exceptions and Discussion

Petitioner on appeal does not deny having mail forwarded to him from Post Office Box 7227, but contends that he is not using the box solely for the purpose of forwarding mail since mail addressed to that box is also being picked up in person. In addition, Petitioner claims that postal employees have acted improperly in this matter^1/ and the "process" involved in his box closing is defective and does not protect his interests. Petitioner further requests that this matter be resolved informally with Respondent under 39 C.F.R § 958.12, or in the alternative, that it be referred to the Postmaster General for resolution under 39 C.F.R. § 958.11.

Petitioner has not shown that the Postmaster's determination to close Post Office Box 7227 was improper. Post office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service regulations.^2/ Postal regulations provide that a post office box may not be used in conjunction with change of address orders for the sole purpose of forwarding mail to another address free of charge. See DMM § 951.164. A postmaster may close a post office box for violation of this or any other regulation relating to box use. See DMM § 951.82(c).

In this case, the undisputed facts establish that Petitioner filed three change of address forms from September 1, 1990, to July 31, 1992, requesting that mail addressed to Post Office Box 7227 be forwarded to three addresses in Connecticut and Florida. Petitioner's requests to have mail forwarded to three different addresses for close to two years, and his admission that he filed the change of address forms for the purpose of forwarding first class mail and govern-ment letters to those addresses (I.D., at 3), establishes that Petitioner is attempting to have mail forwarded by the Postal Service free of charge in violation of DMM § 951.164. Petitioner's claim that mail received at his post office box is also being picked up in person is an unsupported allegation which is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Moreover, nothing in the record suggests, nor has Petitioner shown on appeal, that postal employees involved in this matter acted improperly or that the process involved in the determination or adjudication of his box closing is somehow defective. In addition, while informal resolution of box closings is encouraged, nothing in the record suggests that such negotiations are taking place or that a settlement in this matter has been reached. Thus, there is no reason a final agency decision should not be issued by the Judicial Officer in accordance with 39 C.F.R § 958.11.

Conclusion

The record supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Petitioner's use of Post Office Box 7227 violates DMM § 951.164 and that the Postmaster properly determined that this post office box should be closed. Accordingly, Petitioner's appeal from the Initial Decision is denied, and this decision is the final agency decision under 39 C.F.R. § 958.11.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer

1/ Contrary to his contentions, Petitioner was provided notice of his box closing on at least two occasions when he received the Nashua Postmaster's letters dated February 4 and 21, 1992. Moreover, no error was committed by Respondent's failure to furnish the Administrative Law Judge a copy of Petitioner's March 16, 1992, letter since it was part of the record on which the Initial Decision was based.

2/ See DMM § 951.11; Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 39/14 at 5 (P.S.D. Jan. 7, 1993); David S. DeRiemer, P.S. Docket No. 39/141 at 4 (P.S.D. Nov. 10, 1992), aff'd, (P.S.D. Dec. 22, 1992); William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 at 6-7 (P.S.D. Dec. 31, 1986); Mrs. Junior E. Powell, P.S.Docket No. 21/159 at 2 (P.S.D. Nov. 29, 1985).