In the Matter of the Petition by   	)  May 6, 1999              
                                    	)
FRANK GOMON                        	)
P.O. Box 570031                    	)
Tarzana, CA 91357-0031             	)
                                    	)
                                    	)
                                    	)
Refusal to Provide Post Office     	)
Box or Caller Service              	)  P.S. Docket No. POB 99-13 


APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		Frank Gomon
       					P. O. Box 570031
       					Tarzana, CA  91357-0031

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

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Petitioner, Frank Gomon, has filed an appeal from the February 26, 1999 Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from the Tarzana, CA Postmaster’s refusal to provide Petitioner with post office box service. Petitioner contends that the Postal Service’s requirements for post office box service are unreasonable and unrealistic and that the Tarzana, CA Postmaster is discriminating against him by denying him post office box service.

Background

The Tarzana, CA Postmaster previously terminated Petitioner’s post office box service for P.O. Box 570031 for his failure provide a verifiable physical address on an updated post office box application as required by Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The Postmaster’s determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge in an Initial Decision dated December 21, 1998, which was affirmed by a Postal Service Decision dated February 18, 1999.⁽¹⁾ While the prior case was pending, Petitioner applied for a new post office box and when he received no response from the Tarzana, CA Postmaster, he filed the Petition which is the basis for this proceeding.

In the Initial Decision in this case, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner had again failed to provided a verifiable physical address on an application for post office box service, that he had raised no new questions of law or fact and that under the ruling of the prior case he was not entitled to post office box service. Therefore, he dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner filed a timely appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

Decision

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. There is no merit to Petitioner’s contentions that the requirement for a verifiable address is unreasonable and unrealistic or that he is being discriminated against. The Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable informational requirements in formulating the criteria for post office box service.⁽²⁾ While Petitioner continues to argue that he is entitled to reside at the address he has provided, he has not presented any new evidence to support his argument.⁽³⁾ Furthermore, the Tarzana, CA Postmaster’s requirement that Petitioner abide by published regulations is not discriminatory.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Administrative Law Judge’s decision upholding the Postmaster’s determination not to rent a second post office box to Petitioner for his failure to comply with DMM §D910.2.4 is affirmed.⁽⁴⁾

						James A. Cohen
						Judicial Officer

2. 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; William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 (P.S.D. Dec. 31, 1986), at 6.

3. As was noted in the previous Postal Service Decision, an envelope addressed and delivered to the address furnished by Petitioner is not sufficient evidence to show that he does in fact reside at that address. Frank Gomon, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-505 (P.S.D. Feb. 18, 1999), at 2.

4. On May 3, 1999, Petitioner requested that a member of the Judicial Officer staff notify the Tarzana, CA Postmaster that Petitioner has two appeals awaiting final decision and instruct him not to return Petitioner's mail. The issuance of this final decision renders Petitioner's request moot. Petitioner's third appeal, which makes the exact same contentions that are made in this appeal, is currently pending before the Judicial Officer and a final decision will be issued shortly.