In the Matter of the Petition by ) July 14, 1998
)
MICHAEL D. TOMSYCK )
702 William Drive )
Sun Prairie, WI 53590-1364 )
)
)
)
Termination of Post Office Box )
Service for P.O. Box 8112, )
Madison, WI ) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-168
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Michael D. Tomsyck
702 William Drive
Sun Prairie, WI 53590-1364
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Rodney Gould, Esq.
Civil Practice Section
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, D.C. 20260-1147
This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Tomsyck after being informed by a letter, received on March 3, 1998, from Steve Wenzel, Plant Manager, Processing and Distribution Center, Madison, Wisconsin, that P.O. Box 8112 was to be closed because Petitioner had failed to update his PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box.
After Respondent's Answer was received, an Order was issued on May 5, 1998, directing that this case would be decided on a written record. The parties were directed to file written evidence, including affidavits from persons having knowledge of the issues and copies of any Forms 1093 that had been submitted by Mr. Tomsyck, by June 8, 1998. Respondent was also directed to give Mr. Tomsyck copies of any relevant documents that had not already been provided to him. Thereafter, Respondent filed a sworn statement from Ms. Bristol, Manager of Distribution Operations, and copies of two Forms 1093. Petitioner asked for additional time and was given until July 6, 1998 to file additional material. Petitioner filed no additional evidence, but submitted additional arguments, received on July 6, 1998. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by both parties.
1. Post Office Box 8112 in Madison, Wisconsin, has been rented in the name of "The Madison Company " for many years. An application form, PS Form 1093, dated in 1988, bears Petitioner's signature as the applicant. (Petition; Bristol affidavit and attached Form 1093).
2. Petitioner has regularly paid the required rental fee for Box 8112, most recently in January 1998. (Petition; receipt attached).
3. In February 1998, apparently because mail was being received at Box 8112 addressed to names that were not listed on the Form 1093 as being authorized to receive mail there, a postal employee told Mr. Tomsyck that he would have to complete a new Form 1093. Mr. Tomsyck challenged this requirement and was also told that he had to provide a verifiable residence address. After speaking with two postal supervisors and not being satisfied with their explanations as to why this information was necessary, Mr. Tomsyck declined to complete a new Form 1093. (Petition).
4. Mr. Wenzel then sent Petitioner a letter stating his determination that Box 8112 would be closed because of Petitioner's failure to update the Form 1093, specifically stating that a box customer must provide the postmaster with a verifiable physical address. It was reported to the postmaster by a postal carrier that the address provided by Petitioner, 702 William Drive, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, was a vacant house (Bristol affidavit).(1)
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. Section D910.3.2 of the DMM states:
When any information required to be provided by the box customer on Form 1093 changes, the customer must notify the post office of such changes.
7. 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."
Petitioner makes a series of arguments, most of which are not relevant to the issue that must be decided here. He complains that no postal official has asked him for an updated form in twenty years and, therefore, Respondent has no right to ask for one now. He states that he believes he is being singled out for harassment, and demands to know whether all box customers have been required to update the application forms. He also asserts that he has violated no Federal or State laws. Finally, he states that if postal officials had satisfactorily answered his questions about why they need a new Form 1093, why they waited so long to ask for one, and what procedures they follow with other box customers, this matter could have been settled long ago.
It may be that some of Petitioner's questions were not unreasonable, or that some postal official could have given him a more satisfactory response, but the DMM rules quoted above are quite clear. Rather than comply with those rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Petitioner has chosen to become a litigator. He has not, however, submitted a sworn statement, or any other evidence, disputing Respondent's assertion that he has failed to provide a true physical address. As to whether he has broken any laws, no one has alleged that he has, but that is not the issue.
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. R.C. Tanner, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-67 (P.S.D. May 15, 1998); 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.
The Plant Manager's determination to close Petitioner's post
office box, based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.4
and D910.8.2 is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge