September 21, 1995
In the Matter of the Petition by
MARK KIRCHNER
PO BOX 70312
Ft. Bragg, NC 28307-0312
Termination of Post Office Box Service For P.O. Box 38, Wichita Falls, TX
P.S. Docket No. POB 95-259
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Mark Kirchner, Pro Se
P.O. Box 70312
Ft. Bragg, NC 28307-0312
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jeanine H. Walter, Esq.
Consumer Protection Law
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1144
DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Mr. Kirchner's Petition, regarding Post Office Box 38 in Wichita Falls, Texas, was received on July 28, 1995. On August 11, 1995, Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner did not reply separately to this motion, but his earlier letter dated August 10, 1995, with attachments, has been considered.
The pertinent facts, which do not appear to be in dispute, are not complex. Mr. Kirchner shared Box 38 with Ms. Phelps, who had initially rented it in Mr. Kirchner's name, in January 1995. Both were authorized to receive mail there. On June 1, 1995, Mr. Kirchner submitted a change-of-address notice, apparently because he was leaving for a period of active military service at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Because the notice did not give a termination date for mail forwarding, and did not otherwise indicate that this was to be a temporary absence, the post office treated it as a surrender of the box. Box 38 was reassigned to a new customer on June 22, 1995. When postal officials learned of the misunderstanding, they attempted to contact the new box holder to ask if the box could be returned to Mr. Kirchner. The file contains no details, but this obviously was unsuccessful. The post office then offered Petitioner another box. Mr. Kirchner did not accept this offer, but instead filed this Petition, asking that Box 38 be returned to him, or that he be reimbursed for the cost of printing new personal checks showing a new mailing address.
Respondent moves to dismiss because questions concerning the surrender of post office boxes are not appealable under 39 C.F.R., Part 958, and because the Administrative Law Judge has no authority to grant the relief that Petitioner requests. Respondent is correct.
39 C.F.R. Part 958, granting a customer the right to Petition for review in the Judicial Officer Department, applies to cases in which a postmaster has issued a formal Determination denying an application for a post office box, or terminating post office box service. A Determination, in the form of a letter, is required only when service is denied or terminated for one of the reasons stated in Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §§D910.7.1 or D910.7.2. These reasons include abuse of the box, use of the box for unlawful purposes, submitting false information in renting the box, or otherwise violating postal regulations involving a post office box. A postmaster does not issue a Determination when a box is surrendered, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore, questions concerning surrender of a post office box are not appealable to an Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer, nor is there any authority to direct the return of a post office box to a former box holder after it has been rented to another customer. William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55 (P.S.D. April 26, 1993); Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. P.S. Docket No. 37/120 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991).
Finally, while there may be some sympathy for Petitioner on the facts as he presents them, neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Judicial Officer has authority to direct any reimbursement to him.
CONCLUSION
The Administrative Law Judge lacks jurisdiction to act on Petitioner's complaint. Respondent's motion is granted, and the Petition is hereby dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge