In the Matter of the Petition by) April 30, 1998
      				)
ALBERT RAMSEYER   		)
2420 Sunup Drive    		)
Las Vegas, NV  89134-8426  	)
      				)
      				)
      				)
Termination of Post Office Box  )
Service for P.O. Box 33873,  	)
Las Vegas, NV    		) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-91


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 	Albert Ramseyer
      				2420 Sunup Drive
      				Las Vegas, NV  89134-8426

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 	Christine M. Taylor, Esq.
      				Consumer Protection Law
      				United States Postal Service
      				475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
      				Washington, DC  20260-1127

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Ramseyer after being informed by letter dated February 3, 1998 that his post office box service was being discontinued because he had failed to complete an updated application form.

On March 18, 1998, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that there were no factual issues in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After receiving an extension of time for submitting a reply, Petitioner has now replied to the motion. Although he does not express disagreement with the facts asserted in the motion, he voices many general complaints about the service provided by his local post office and their handling of this matter. The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by Petitioner, and the documents attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

1. Petitioner, Mr. Ramseyer, was assigned Post Office Box 33873 at the Red Rock Vista Station in Las Vegas on approximately April 24, 1992.

2. On January 9, 1998, the Manager, Customer Services, at Red Rock Station sent Mr. Ramseyer a letter stating that post office personnel had attempted to locate Mr. Ramseyer regarding a registered letter, but had been unable to because information was missing from his post office box application, PS Form 1093. Apparently, there had been previous communication over this matter, as the letter stated, "I am requesting that you provide us with this information once again."

3. On January 28, 1998, in response to a fax message from Petitioner, the Manager sent Petitioner another letter asking him to update his Form 1093. The letter stated that as soon as Petitioner updated the form, all his mail would be placed in his post office box.

4. On February 3, 1998, the Manager, Customer Services, Las Vegas District, sent a letter to Petitioner, explaining that a completed Form 1093 from box customers is required by Postal Service regulations. A copy of the form was enclosed, and Petitioner was told that his box would be reopened for 30 days to give him time to complete the form and submit it to Red Rock Vista.

5. On February 9, 1998, in response to inquiries from Petitioner about how to appeal the decision to close his box, the Manager sent Petitioner another letter, telling him where to file an appeal and that his box would remain open while the appeal was pending.

6. Mr. Ramseyer filed his Petition shortly thereafter, but has never completed a new Form 1093. The 1992 application did not include a telephone number.

7. 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. ... An incomplete or falsified application is sufficient reason to deny or discontinue service.

8. 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).

Failure to provide a telephone number might appear trivial, but the rules quoted above (FOF 7-8) are clear.^1/ Rather than comply with those rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Mr. Ramseyer has chosen to fight, by making a myriad of unrelated complaints and demands. He has not disputed the fact that he has refused to update his Form 1093. His complaints about other matters relating to service at the Red Rock Vista Station over the years, and his complaints about failure of the Postmaster General to answer letters are not relevant to the issue in this case. Also, his requests for restitution and "treble punitive damages" are beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.

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 his residence address, or he may re-apply for box service by properly completing the application form.

The Postmaster's determination to close Petitioner's post office box, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.1 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