In the Matter of the Petition by ) January 29, 1999 ) FRANK LINKS ) P.O. Box 111 ) Westport, NY 12993-0111 ) ) ) Termination of Post Office Box ) Service for P.O. Box 475 ) Westport, NY ) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-544 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Frank Links P.O. Box 111 Westport, NY 12993-0111 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph K. Moore, Esq. Consumer Protection Law United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Links after receiving a letter from the Westport Postmaster stating that Mr. Links’ post office box service for box 475 was being terminated under the provisions of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Section D910.8.2, because Mr. Links put false information on his application for the post office box.
On December 11, 1998, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By Order of December 15, 1998, the motion was denied, as there were insufficient facts in the record upon which to base a decision. The Order also stated that, without objection, this case would be decided on a written record. The parties were given until January 11, 1999 to submit additional evidence.
Respondent submitted additional evidence, including an affidavit from the Westport Postmaster, Kenneth Hintz. Petitioner has submitted nothing.1/ The following findings of fact are based on the material submitted with the Petition and the documents filed by Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner first rented Post Office Box 475, effective October 10, 1984 (Atch C to Respondent’s Ex. 1). The address provided on his application (PS Form 1093), dated September 26, 1984, was Sherman Road, Westport, NY (Atch.B to Respondent’s Ex. 1).
2. Another Form 1093 (undated) lists his address as "Church St. Jay, N.Y." The word "temporary" is printed above this address, and the Sherman Road address is also included, with "1998" written above it. (Atch A to Respondent’s Ex. 1).
3. The Village of Westport and the Village of Jay are both located in Essex County, but are approximately 30 miles apart. The boundaries of the Town of Jay are unknown. Towns are separate political and geographic entities in New York State, and may contain more than one village.2/
4. Sometime in 1998, the Westport Postmaster, Mr. Hintz, gave Mr. Links’ Church Street address to a process server. It was reported back to the postmaster that this was an incorrect address. Mr. Hintz called the postmaster of Jay, NY, who told him that there was no Church Street in the Village of Jay. Petitioner has not lived on Sherman Road in Westport for at least four years. (Respondent’s Exs. 1 and 1A).
5. In September 1998, at the time the annual box rent was due, Mr. Hintz placed a renewal form in Petitioner’s post office box so that Petitioner could update the address. This form was returned, dated October 1, 1998, and was signed by Petitioner’s wife. A box on the form was checked, indicating there was no change in the residence address. (Respondent’s Answer, Ex. 1; and also attached to Petition).
6. Other than copies of two unidentifiable photographs, which Petitioner claims show that there is a Church Street in the Town of Jay, Petitioner has submitted nothing, either to the postmaster or in support of his Petition, to verify his residence address.
7. 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. If the postmaster cannot confirm the physical address, the applicant or box customer must provide proof of the physical address . . ..
8. DMM Section D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if a customer "falsifies the application for the box," or "refuses to update information on the box application."
DECISION
The rules quoted above (FOF 7-8) are clear. Rather than comply with those rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Mr. Links has made a number of tangential arguments, allegations against the actions of the postmaster, and threats to sue for damages. He has not, however, disputed the essential facts, i.e., that he has not provided a verifiable physical address on his application for a post office box.
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. It is also noted that he has another post office box that is apparently still open.
The postmaster’s determination to close Petitioner’s post office box, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2. In one of the letters submitted with his Petition, Mr. Links claims to live on Church Street in the Town of Jay.