Appeal of ROBERT REWOLDT - P.S. Docket No. POB 95-239

Administrative Law Judges

In the Matter of the Petition by	) August 17, 1995
					)
ROBERT REWOLDT				)
P.O. Box 9152				)
Incline Village, NV 89452-9152		)
					)
					)
Termination of Post Office Box		)
Service for P.O. Box 55, Frederika, IA	) P.S. Docket No. POB 95-239

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Robert H. Rewoldt, Pro Se
					P.O. Box 9152
					Incline Village, NV 89452-9152

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Wendy A. Hocking, Esq.
					Consumer Protection Law
					United States Postal Service
					475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
					Washington, DC 20260-1147

INITIAL DECISION

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Rewoldt on June 15, 1995, appealing the Postmaster's Determination of May 26, 1995 to terminate service for P.O. Box 55 in Frederika, Iowa. The Postmaster's letter stated that service was being terminated pursuant to provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual that prohibit use of a post office box solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded to another address free of charge.

On July 26, 1995, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Attached to the motion is a sworn declaration of the Frederika, Iowa Postmaster, Luanne E. Hansen, and copies of records pertaining to P.O. Box 55. By Order of July 27, 1995, Petitioner was given until August 25, 1995 to reply to the motion. Petitioner replied with a letter, received on August 14, 1995.

The following Findings of Fact are based on the materials submitted by Respondent with its motion, and by Petitioner.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Available records do not show when Petitioner first rented P.O. Box 55, but a Rent Register (PS Form 1091-A) shows that he had it as early as June 1984. (Hansen Decl., Ex. 7.)

2. During the time that Ms. Hansen has been postmaster at Frederika (since May 1990), no one has picked up mail from Box 55. (Hansen Decl., para 6.)

3. On December 30, 1992, December 10, 1993, and December 1, 1994, Mr. Rewoldt submitted change of address orders (PS Form 3575) to have mail forwarded from P.O. Box 55 to other post office boxes in Incline village, Nevada (the 1992 and 1994 orders), and Lebanon, Oregon (the 1993 order). (Hansen Decl., Ex. 5.)

4. Petitioner does not live in Iowa, but runs a farm in Iowa, incorporated under the name Mothers Farm, Ltd. (Rewoldt letter, Aug. 8, 1995.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § D910.7.2a. states: A postmaster may terminate post office box service if the box customer . . . violates any regulation or condition on the care or use of the box.

2. DMM § 910.3.7 states:

Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, through change-of-address orders, to have the USPS forward mail to another address free of charge.

3. A grant of summary judgment is proper when there are no issues of material fact in dispute and when, as a matter of law, the moving party is entitled to judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact and, if that burden is met, the opposing party must counter with something more than "mere denials or conclusory statements." Mingus Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-59; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

4. Respondent's evidence establishes that all mail received at P.O. Box 55 in Frederika, Iowa since 1990 has been forwarded to Petitioner at other addresses, pursuant to change-of-address orders. Mr. Rewoldt does not dispute this. His appeal letter consists of only one sentence, "I appeal because the above [mail forwarding] is not the sole purpose."

5. Mr. Rewoldt's response to the Motion for Summary Judgment offers an explanation for why he wants to keep the post office box, but he has submitted no evidence to raise a material issue of fact. He states that Iowa requires him to have an in-state address in order to operate an Iowa corporation, and that he receives Iowa real estate tax bills at his Frederika, Iowa box. Assuming that is true, it creates no material issue of fact. The material facts are that all mail addressed to Post Office Box 55 is forwarded out of state, and that the sole purpose of Petitioner's having the box is so that this can be done. His motive for wanting to do it is not material. The Postal Service is not obligated to overlook, or waive, its rules simply to assist a customer in this way.

6. The Postmaster's Determination to close Petitioner's post office box based on violation of DMM § D910.3.7 is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the Petition is dismissed.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge