In the Matter of the Petition by  ) March 25, 1998
				  )
JUDITH GRUBER  			  )
153 Clift Street  		  )
Mystic, CT  06335-1800 		  )
			          )
  				  )
			          )
Termination of Post Office Box	  )
Service for P.O. Box 76, Vershire, VT ) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-1

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  	  Richard E. Davis, Jr. Esq.
       				  Davis & Tobin, P.C.
       				  30 Washington Street
       				  Barre, VT 05641-0666

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  	  Christine M. Taylor, Esq.
       				  Civil Practice Section
       				  United States Postal Service
     				  475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
    				  Washington, DC 20260-1147

Judith Gruber filed this Petition after receiving a letter from the Vershire, Vermont Postmaster, dated October 23, 1997, notifying her that post office box service was to be terminated because Petitioner was using the box solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded free of charge to other addresses. On January 12, 1998, Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no issues of material fact in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I have considered Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Petitioner's response thereto. I find that there are no material facts in dispute and that decision on the motion is appropriate. The following findings of fact are based on the materials submitted by Petitioner.

1. Petitioner, Judith Gruber, applied for, and was assigned, P.O. Box 76 in October 1982. She has served on active duty with the United States Navy since 1983.

2. Prior to 1983, Petitioner resided in Vermont, her driver's license and vehicle registration are issued by Vermont, she pays real estate taxes in Vermont, and files a Vermont state income tax return. Therefore, as she has not established a domicile in any other state, Vermont remains her legal domicile.

3. Since 1983, Petitioner has been transferred to several different locations in the United States. Each transfer was pursuant to official orders issued by the United States Navy. Each time she was transferred, Petitioner submitted a change-of-address order, requesting that her mail be forwarded from P.O. Box 76 to an address at her new duty station.

4. Most recently, in July 1996, Petitioner was assigned to the Naval Hospital in Groton, Connecticut, and she submitted a change-of-address order to 153 Clift Street, Mystic, Connecticut.

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). This case involves no dispute over the facts, but rather the application of certain regulations to those facts.

The case involves interpretation of certain provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). Section D910 covers "Post Office Box Service," and subsection D910.3.7 states that, "Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, through change-of-address orders, to have the USPS forward or transfer mail to another address free of charge." Subsection D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate box service if a boxholder violates any of the rules on use of the box. Respondent's position is based on these two provisions.

Petitioner's argument is based on another DMM Section. Section F020 deals with "Forwarding," and subsection F020.2.6, "Military Mail," states:

All Express Mail, First-, second-, and fourth-class mail and single-piece rate third-class mail addressed to persons in the United States (civil and military) serving where U.S. mail operates is forwarded at no added charge when the change of address is caused by official orders. . . .

Petitioner contends that this provision entitles her to use her post office box for the purpose of having mail forwarded to a new address whenever she moves pursuant to military orders, for as long as she resides at the new address. Petitioner reads too much into subsection F020.2.6. The benefit that section gives to military personnel is that it eliminates forwarding charges that would otherwise be assessed for some classes of mail. See DMM §F020.3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. There is no language in the regulation that makes the normal time limits on forwarding inapplicable to military personnel (see DMM §F020.1.1), or that exempts military personnel from the rules in §D910 pertaining to the use of post office boxes.

Petitioner is using P.O. Box 76 for the sole purpose of having mail forwarded to other addresses. This is contrary to the rule in DMM §D910.3.7, and the postmaster's determination to close Petitioner's post office box is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the Petition is dismissed.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge