In the Matter of the Petition by:       ) April 26, 1993
                                        )
WILLIAM KUNTZ, III                      )
P.O. Box 937                            )
Elizabethtown, NY  12932-0937           )
                                        )
Termination of Post Office Box Service  )
for P.O. Box 1722, Albany, NY           ) P. S. Docket No. 40/55


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:              WIilliam Kuntz, III
                                        P.O. Box 937
                                        Elizabethtown, NY  12932-0937   


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

William Kuntz, III (Petitioner) has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge in which the Administrative Law Judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Albany, New York Postmaster that Post Office Box 1722 had been surrendered for nonpayment of rental fees. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Petitioner's post office box had in fact been surrendered for nonpayment of rent under Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 951.32(b), and the Postal Service Administrative Law Judges do not have jurisdiction over the surrender of post office boxes.

Petitioner contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that his post office box was surrendered for nonpayment of rent. According to Petitioner, his post office box was terminated because the Postmaster was attempting to get him to rent a larger and more expensive post office box. Petitioner, in addition, contends that the Postmaster failed to issue a determination on the termination of his post office box as required by DMM § 951.83, and wrongfully and maliciously impounded his mail including the notices of rent due.

The record supports the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Post Office Box 1722 had been surrendered for nonpayment of rent (I.D., Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶ ¶ 3-5). Since the box was surrendered rather than terminated, no determination of the Postmaster under DMM § 951.83 was required.^1/ Moreover, regardless of whether the box was surrendered or terminated, Postal Service regulations do not provide for the return of a post office box to a former boxholder after the box has been rented to another customer. See Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 37/120 at 4-5 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991). Since Post Office Box 1722 was rented to another postal customer (I.D., FOF ¶ 4), it may not be returned to Petitioner. Id.

The record supports the dismissal of the petition since Post Office Box 1722 was surrendered for nonpayment of rent, rather than terminated for violation of Postal regulations. 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/ Under DMM § 951.831, a determination by the Postmaster is required only when an application is denied for the reasons provided in DMM § 951.81 or box service is terminated for the reasons provided in DMM § 951.82. Provisions pertaining to the surrender of a post office box for nonpayment of rent are provided in DMM § § 951.28, .29, .32, .35 & .85, and do not require a Postmaster's determination. Thus, questions concerning the surrender of boxes are not appealable to the Administrative Law Judges or the Judicial Officer.