In the Matter of the Petition by	)  December 15, 1999
					)
M. L. WARD				)
P.O. Box 392				)
Thomas, OK  73669-0392			)
					)
					)
					)
Termination of Post Office Box 		)
Service of P.O. Box  6501,		)
Moore, OK  73153-0501			)  P.S. Docket No. POB 99-257

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:   		M. L. Ward
					P.O. Box 392
					Thomas, OK  73669-0392

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Dorothy Graham Campbell, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					United States Postal Service
					475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, 
					Room 6323
					Washington, D.C. 20260-1127

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Ward, after being advised by the Oklahoma City Postmaster that he intended to terminate Mr. Ward's post office box service because he had failed to update his application for a post office box, to include a physical address.

On July 2, 1999, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a sworn Declaration from the Moore, Oklahoma Branch Manager, J. R. Good, and other supporting documents. Respondent argued that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner replied and, on August 4, 1999, the motion was denied because a question of fact existed as to whether Petitioner had provided satisfactory proof of a physical address. The parties were given until August 30, 1999 to submit additional evidence. At Respondent's request, this was extended to September 10, 1999.

On September 10, 1999, Respondent filed additional documents and also asked that further action be suspended for seven days so that the parties could finalize a settlement agreement. By Order dated September 13, 1999, further action was suspended until October 8, 1999. On October 8, 1999, Respondent filed a Status Report, stating a belief that a settlement agreement would be signed shortly. On November 2, 1999, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, stating that Petitioner had refused to agree to a settlement, which would have given him a different post office box, with no fee for six months. The motion was based on the fact that Box 6501 was "no longer available."

By Order dated November 10, 1999, Respondent was directed to provide evidence as to why the box was "no longer available." On November 29, 1999, Respondent filed documents showing that Box 6501 had been rented to another customer on July 20, 1999.

The following findings of fact are based on all the evidence in the record.

1. Petitioner is a Postal Service employee at the Moore, Oklahoma Branch of the Oklahoma City Post Office. He rented Post Office Box 6501 for an unknown period of time. (Good Decl.; forwarding letter of George Frame, Postmaster, June 3, 1999).

2. On about March 16, 1999, a note signed by J. R. Good, Branch Manager, was placed in Petitioner's Post Office Box 6501. This note told Petitioner that postal regulations required him to submit an updated post office box application, PS Form 1093. (Good Decl.; PS Ex. 1).

3. At some time thereafter, Petitioner presented a copy of an electricity bill, apparently addressed to him at an address in Thomas, Oklahoma. (Good Decl.; it is unclear whether Petitioner ever submitted an updated Form 1093).

4. On May 7, 1999, on belief that the Thomas address was not valid, the postmaster issued Petitioner a letter informing him that Box 6501 would be closed because he had failed to provide proof of a physical address. Mr. Ward then filed his Petition, which was received in this office on June 3, 1999.

5. On July 20, 1999, Box 6501 was rented to Thomas Sierra, who paid the rental fee and has been using the box since that date.

6. Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.8.3, referring to a postmaster's determination to terminate box service, states that "the filing of a petition prevents the postmaster's determination from taking effect and transfers the case to the USPS Judicial Officer."

The Postal Service failed to follow the rule stated in FOF #6, but Petitioner is no longer entitled to the relief that he seeks. Post Office Box 6501 cannot be taken back from a customer who is in no way at fault. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is granted. However, if Mr. Ward so desires, Respondent is directed to provide him with another box of equal size at the Moore, Oklahoma Post Office, free of charge for one year. If Mr. Ward applies for renewal at the end of that time, he must comply with all rules pertaining to application for box service, as would any other customer.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge