In the Matter of the Petition by 	)  July 16, 1999            
                                	)
FRED CHERRY                      	)
P.O. Box 21017                   	)
Brooklyn, NY 11202-1017          	)
                                 	)
                                 	)
                                 	)
Termination of Mail Box Service  	)
for P.O. Boxes 21011 and 21017,  	)
Brooklyn, NY                     	)  P.S. Docket No. POB 99-71 


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Albert M. Rizzo, Esq.
					Tarter & Gulotta
					470 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor 
					New York, NY 10016-6819

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Janessa L. Grady, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					United States Postal Service
					475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
					Washington, DC  20260-1127

Petitioner, Fred Cherry, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge upholding the determination of the Brooklyn, NY Postmaster to terminate service to Petitioner’s post office boxes. Respondent opposes the appeal.

The Brooklyn, NY Postmaster terminated Petitioner’s post office box service based on Petitioner’s refusal to provide a verifiable address in accordance with Domestic Mail Manual §D910.2.3.⁽¹⁾ Petitioner has not denied that he failed to provide a verifiable physical address as required by Postal Service regulations. Instead, he contends on appeal that his refusal to comply with Postal Service regulations was justified because the requirement that post office box holders provide a verifiable physical address is a violation of his constitutional rights. He therefore requests that the Postal Service waive the requirement for a verifiable physical address.

Petitioner relies on the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions⁽²⁾ to support his request. However, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions only applies in situations where "the Government has placed a condition on the recipient of [a] subsidy rather than on a particular program or service"⁽³⁾ and, thereby denies "a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests."⁽⁴⁾ Post office box service is not a government subsidy or benefit. It is a premium service provided to any customer willing to comply with Postal Service regulations.⁽⁵⁾ Therefore, Petitioner’s reliance on the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is misplaced. Further, neither the Judicial Officer nor the Postal Service Administrative Law Judges have the authority to consider the constitutionality of Postal Service regulations⁽⁶⁾ or to order the waiver of those regulations in this proceeding.⁽⁷⁾

Petitioner has not shown that the Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law or that any other basis exists for granting his appeal. Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision upholding the termination of post office box service for P.O. Boxes 21011 and 21017 is affirmed.

2. Petitioner's appeal refers to the doctrine of "unconditional conditions." However, the cited case law concerns the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and it is presumed that is the doctrine on which Petitioner is basing his argument.

3. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 197 (1991).

4. Id. at 196, citing Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

5. Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. Aug. 27, 1998), at n. 5; Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 39/14 (P.S.D. Jan. 7, 1993), at 5.

6. Cf. Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, P.S. Docket No. SCD 97-192 (P.S.D. July 16, 1998), at n. 9; David Sellers, P.S. Docket No. 37/153 (P.S.D. Aug. 17, 1993), at 4; Columbia Flier, P.S. Docket No. 26/17 (P.S.D. May 11, 1988), at 3.

7. Cf. Wise Enterprises, P.S. Docket No. 30/169 (I.D. April 11, 1989), at 10, finalized, (Order Nov. 17, 1989).