In the Matter of the Petition by  	) April 7, 1998
      					)
R. C. TANNER    			)
P. O. Box 55     			)
Pinopolis, SC  29469-0055   		)
      					)
      					)
      					)
     					)
Termination of Post Office Box  	)
Service for P.O. Box 55 at   		)
Pinopolis, SC    			) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-67

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		R. C. Tanner
					P. O. Box 55 
      					Pinopolis, SC  29469-0055

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		Anne N. Graham, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
      					United States Postal Service 
      					475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6403
      					Washington, D.C.  20260-1127

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Tanner on February 11, 1998, after being advised that the Pinopolis Postmaster intended to terminate his post office box service because he had refused to provide a physical address on his application for a post office box.

On February 27, 1998, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment. By Order dated March 4, 1998, Petitioner was given until March 20, 1998 to reply to the motion. Although another letter from Petitioner was received on March 11, 1998, he has not replied to the arguments or the factual assertions made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. The following findings of fact are based on the documents submitted with the motion,¹ as well as the letters submitted by Mr. Tanner.

1. Petitioner applied for a post office box in November 1992, using PS Form 1093. He was assigned Post Office Box 55 at the Pinopolis Post Office. (Answer, Ex. 1).

2. At that time, Pinopolis did not have physical street addresses, and an applicant was not required to provide one on the Form 1093. (Hill affidavit). When Pinopolis instituted street addresses in 1994, the postmaster began asking boxholders to complete their Form 1093 by including a street address. (Hill affidavit).

3. On January 20, and January 27, 1998, respectively, Ms. Hill and Mr. Jackson spoke with Petitioner and told him what he needed to do to restore his box service, i.e., provide a physical address on the Form 1093. (Hill affidavit; Jackson affidavit). Mr. Tanner has declined to do so. (Jackson affidavit).

4. Section D910.2.1 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:

To apply for post office box service, the applicant must complete all relevant spaces on Form 1093 . . ..

5. Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:

An applicant for post office box service or a current box customer seeking renewal must identify his or her physical address (i.e., an individual's residence or a business's location) to the postmaster of the office where service is sought or provided. . . ..

6. DMM Section D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if a customer "refuses to update information on the box application."

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).

The rules quoted above (FOF 4-6) are clear. Mr. Tanner has not disputed the facts set forth in the Motion for Summary Judgment, and he has given no reason for not providing an address, as required by the DMM. In one of Mr. Tanner's letters, he seems to base his argument, at least in part, on an assertion that he has broken no law and that postal officials are depriving him of his right to receive mail. Whether or not Petitioner has broken any law is not the issue. He has failed to comply with established Postal Service rules regarding the use of post office boxes. Post office box service is not something any customer has a "right" to. It is a service offered to customers who are willing to comply with the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of post office boxes. Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (P.S.D. February 24, 1997); William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 (P.S.D. December 31, 1986); Anthony E. DiBari, P.S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. January 24, 1985). Further, Petitioner is not being deprived of his right to receive mail. He may have mail delivered at a residence address, or he may re-apply for box service by properly completing the application form.²

The Postmaster's determination to close Petitioner's post office box, based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.1 and D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge 

2. It is noted that there is some evidence of abusive and threatening behavior by Mr. Tanner toward postal officials. That also may be a proper basis for terminating, or refusing, post office box service. As this was not given as the reason for terminating service, however, it is not the basis for this decision.