Appeal of MICHAEL D. TOMSYCK - P. S. Docket No. POB 98-168

In the Matter of the Petition by	)  September 22, 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:		Janessa L. Grady, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, DC  20260-1127

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Petitioner, Michael D. Tomsyck, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge upholding the determination of a Madison, WI postal official to terminate service to P.O. Box 8112 because Petitioner failed to update his previously filed PS Form 1093.¹ Petitioner asserts that the Administrative Law Judge erroneously failed to address his contention that the Postal Service waived its right to have him update his Form 1093 and that the doctrine of laches required the Administrative Law Judge to rule that Petitioner was entitled to continue using the post office box.² Respondent opposes the appeal.

The undisputed facts establish that Petitioner’s post office box service was terminated for failure to provide a verifiable address³ when he was asked to update his application for post office box service. Since DMM §D910.3.2 requires a post office box customer to notify the post office of any changes to the information required on a Form 1093 and Petitioner failed to provide updated address information to postal officials when it appeared that updated information should have been filed, Madison, WI Postal Service officials properly notified Petitioner of their intention to terminate his post office box privileges.⁴

Petitioner’s contention that the Postal Service waived the requirement to update his Form 1093 has no merit. Under DMM §D910.3.2, "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." Thus, Petitioner was required to update his Form 1093 when changes occurred. Since it was Petitioner’s obligation to provide updated information to the Postal Service, the Postal Service cannot be held to have waived the DMM requirements. When it came to the attention of Postal Service officials that changes in the information provided by Petitioner on his original Form 1093 may have taken place,⁵ it was appropriate for the Postal Service to request an updated Form 1093 from Petitioner and terminate Petitioner’s post office box service when that information was not provided.⁶

Petitioner’s assertion that the Postal Service could not terminate his post office box service because of the doctrine of laches is misplaced. The doctrine of laches applies to cases involving an unreasonable delay in the assertion of a legal claim.⁷ Since the Postal Service had no duty to seek an update of the information on Petitioner’s Form 1093, and prior to February 1998, it did not suspect that changes in that information had occurred,⁸ there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the Postal Service in seeking the updated information from Petitioner. Therefore, the doctrine of laches did not bar the Postal Service from seeking the updated information from Petitioner.

A review of the entire record establishes that the Administrative Law Judge properly upheld the determination to terminate service to P.O. Box 8112. Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Initial Decision is affirmed.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer

¹ Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §§D910.2.1, D910.2.4 and D910.3.2 provide that an applicant for post office box service must file a Form 1093 with the Postal Service, complete all relevant spaces on the form (including applicant's physical address) and update the information on the form when changes occur.
² Petitioner also contends that he should not be bound by the decisions cited in the Initial Decision because they were not published on the world wide web. While Initial and Final Decisions are being made available on the world wide web as a public service, their precedential value is not dependent on their web site availability. Under Postal Service regulation 39 C.F.R. §265.6(a)(2), all final opinions and orders are publicly available in the Postal Service Headquarters Library.
³ DMM §D910.2.4 states "An applicant for post office box service or a current box customer seeking renewal must identify his or her physical address. . . to the postmaster of the office where service is sought or provided."
⁴ There is no legal right to post office box service. Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (P.S.D. Feb. 24, 1997). Post office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service requirements, and the Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable informational requirements (such as Petitioner's address on the application form) in formulating the criteria for box service. Property Exchange and Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 39/14 (P.S.D. Jan. 7, 1993). See also DMM §D910.1.1.
⁵ Postal Service employees became aware of changes regarding the use of P.O. Box 8112 because mail was being received at Box 8112 addressed to names that were not listed on Petitioner's Form 1093 as being authorized to receive mail at that box. Initial Decision, FOF No. 3.
⁶ Under DMM §D910.8.2, post office box service may be terminated because of a customer's refusal to update information on the box application.
⁷ A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028-29 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Black's Law Dictionary 875 (6th ed. 1990).
⁸ Initial Decision, FOF No. 3.