In the Matter of the Petition by ) September 23, 1999 ) CHARDELL McCORQUODALE ) General Delivery ) Gardner, MA 01440-9998 ) ) ) ) ) Refusal to Provide Post Office ) Box Service ) P.S. Docket No. POB 99-291 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Chardell McCorquodale General Delivery Gardner, MA 01440-9998 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Dorothy Graham Campbell, 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 Ms. McCorquodale, appealing the postmaster's determination to refuse post office box service to her because she failed to provide a verifiable physical address on her application for a post office box. On July 12, 1999, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no issues of material fact in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion, and the Order of July 14, 1999, which gave Petitioner an opportunity to reply to the motion, were sent to Petitioner by certified mail but both were returned as "undeliverable."
Because of the nature of some of the facts asserted in the Petition, and because it was not clear that Petitioner was aware of some of the alternatives that might be available to her, Respondent's representative was directed, by Order of August 6, 1999, to make further attempts to communicate with Petitioner. On August 13, 1999, Respondent's representative reported a new mailing address for Petitioner, and several documents were re-sent to that address on August 19, 1999. In the Order of August 19, 1999, Petitioner was given until September 10, 1999 to reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Our records show that this Order and the accompanying documents were received on August 26, 1999, but there has been no reply from Petitioner. Accordingly, a decision on the motion is appropriate. The following findings of fact are based on all the documents filed with the Petition and Respondent's motion, primarily the sworn Declaration of David Avery, Customer Service Supervisor for the Gardner, Massachusetts Post Office.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Sometime in late May 1999, Petitioner applied for a post office box at the Gardner, Massachusetts Post Office. On the application form (PS Form 1093), Petitioner did not include a physical address.
2. Sometime between May 25 and May 28, 1999, David Avery, Customer Service Supervisor for the Gardner, Massachusetts Post Office discussed the physical address requirement with Petitioner. She told him that she was a victim of domestic physical abuse, had recently been hospitalized as a result of that abuse, and was moving from place to place. She also told Mr. Avery that the person who abused her had relatives who worked in the post office, although not at the Gardner Post Office. Because she feared for her safety, she did not want to disclose any address, even the address of a shelter for battered women where she planned to stay temporarily. Mr. Avery told her she could use that address on the box application. This alternative and others were also noted in footnote 2 of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. On June 11, 1999, the postmaster denied Petitioner's box application because she provided no physical address.
DECISION
Section D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 54) 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 . . ..
DMM Section D910.8.1 gives a postmaster authority to refuse post office box service for various reasons, including if a customer submits an "incomplete application for box service."
I have no authority to grant Petitioner a waiver of the address requirement, or to direct the postmaster to grant a waiver. The application of the above rule to the facts of this case is quite clear. The facts asserted by Ms. McCorquodale in her Petition evoke some sympathy. It also appears, however, that the Postal Service has made some effort to accommodate her, but she has submitted no reply to any of the information filed by the Postal Service. Ms. McCorquodale is entitled to protect her privacy if she wishes, but she is not entitled to 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. R. C. Tanner, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-67 (P.S.D. May 15, 1998); 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). The Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable requirements and rules for the use of post office boxes. Michael D. Tomsyck, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-168 (P.S.D. September 22, 1998).
Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster’s determination to refuse post office box service to Petitioner, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge