In the Matter of the Petition by ) October 28, 1999 ) STEPHEN P. MIKOWSKI ) General Delivery ) 215 Meinrad Street ) Lake Leelanau, MI 49653-9999 ) ) ) ) Termination of Post Office Box ) Service for P.O. Box 195, ) Lake Leelanau, MI ) P.S. Docket No. POB 99-319 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Stephen P. Mikowski 215 Meinrad Street Lake Leelanau, MI 49653-9999 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Angela L. Jenkins, Esq. Janessa L. Grady, Esq. Civil Practice Section United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Mikowski after being informed by a letter from the Lake Leelanau Postmaster, dated June 15, 1999, that his post office box service was being terminated because he had failed to complete a post office box application form.
On August 3, 1999, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed an Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner replied to the motion and, although he did not express disagreement with the facts asserted in the motion, he voiced many complaints about how the Postal Service has handled this matter. By Order dated August 26, 1999, the parties were directed to take certain actions, designed to facilitate settlement, or to frame the issues for decision. Following a Status Report filed by Respondent on September 29, 1999, the parties were given until October 11, 1999 to submit any additional evidence and argument. Neither party did so. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner, Stephen Mikowski, has resided at 215 Meinrad Street, Lake Leelanau, Michigan, since 1969. For many years his practice had been to pick up his mail, no matter how it was addressed, at the Lake Leelanau Post Office. Sometime in 1996, he and other Lake Leelanau residents were advised by the post office that mail should be addressed to them at "General Delivery," rather than to their physical address. The reason for this had to do with automation replacing a clerk who personally sorted mail. (Petition; Answer, Tab D).
2. In April 1998, a change in postal regulations limited the use of "General Delivery," to transients and customers for whom a post office box was not available. Mr. Mikowski, and others similarly situated, were notified that they had two options: (1) erect a mail receptacle at their residence and receive rural delivery, (2) obtain a post office box, free of charge, at the post office. The postmaster gave Mr. Mikowski a year to make this choice, and during that time he continued to receive mail by General Delivery at the post office. (Petition; Answer, Tab A and Tab G).
3. In April 1999, because Petitioner had elected neither option, the postmaster assigned him a post office box and told him he needed to fill out an application form, PS Form 1093. On about May 22, 1999, because the box was too small to accommodate the volume of mail Petitioner received, he was assigned a larger box (Box 195) and was given another application form to fill out. Although Petitioner asserted that he was willing to provide any additional necessary information, he never filled out, or signed, a post office box application form. During this time, Petitioner registered his objections to changing a system that had served him well for nearly thirty years, and a postmaster from a neighboring community attempted to resolve this standoff by acting as an intermediary between Petitioner and his local post office. At one point, Petitioner agreed, "under protest," to sign an application form if post office personnel filled it out.(1) (Petition; Answer, Tab A and Tab C).
4. The Order of August 26, 1999 directed the following:
"1. Not later than September 7, 1999 Mr. Mikowski shall provide to the Lake Leelanau postmaster any and all information necessary to complete a Form 1093. If Mr. Mikowski fails to do this, Respondent may file evidence of that fact and an Initial Decision on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. Part 958, will be issued.
2. If Mr. Mikowski provides the necessary information, the postmaster, or someone acting in her behalf, will record the information on a Form 1093, print Mr. Mikowski's name in the signature block, file the Form 1093 wherever such forms are kept, and continue to place Mr. Mikowski's mail in Box 195. For purposes of any future actions regarding P.O. Box 195, that Form 1093 shall have the same effect as if Mr. Mikowski had signed it.
3. Mr. Mikowski shall promptly inform his correspondents of his correct mailing address, using the services offered by Ms. Barnes in her May 17, 1999 letter."
5. On September 13, 1999, Petitioner submitted to the postmaster a Form 1093, with the names "Stephen P. & Mary Lou Mikowski" printed as boxholders, and including the Meinrad Street address and a telephone number. He also listed four other family members as authorized to receive mail at P.O. Box 195. He apparently declined to sign the form, so the postmaster, Ms. Donaldson, printed his name and hers in the signature box, in accordance with the August 26 Order. Ms. Donaldson also asked Mr. Mikowski for some form of identification so she could enter it in item 9 on the Form 1093. He declined to present any identification, so Ms. Donaldson printed "Refused to show IDs" in item 9.
DECISION
The only issue to be decided here is whether, under all the circumstances of this case, Mr. Mikowski's refusal to show some identification is a proper basis for terminating his post office box service. The following provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Chapter on Post Office Box Service (D910) are applicable:
Application 2.1 To apply for post office box service, the applicant must complete all relevant spaces on Form 1093 and submit it to any postal facility that provides public window service. The facility need not be the one where box service is desired. An incomplete or falsified application is sufficient reason to deny or discontinue service. An application is not approved before the USPS verifies the applicant's identity.
Verification 2.2 At the time of application customers must present two types of valid identification: one must bear a photo and the other must show the applicant's signature and a serial number or other indicia that can be traced to the bearer. Social Security cards are not valid forms of identification. Each person or representative of an organization authorized to receive mail at a specific post office box or caller number must also present two forms of identification.
These identification requirements were effective on July 31, 1998 and were spelled out in Postal Bulletin 21982, October 8, 1998 (attached). That Postal Bulletin also stated the following guidance for Postal Service personnel: The person accepting the application must ensure that customers provide two types of identification, one bearing a photo, when submitting PS Form 1093. The Postal Bulletin, and the form itself, indicates that the employee who verifies the identification and other information on the Form 1093 is required to place his/her initials in item 14 on the form.
Section D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate box service for many reasons, including if a customer "refuses to update information on the box application."
The August 26 Order directed Petitioner to provide "any and all information necessary to complete a Form 1093." While Petitioner might believe that it should not be necessary for him to show some identifying documents because the postmaster knows who he is, it is the quoted sections of the DMM, not individual applicants, that define what is "necessary." The postmaster is bound to follow the rules that her employer has established, and the record here provides no basis for forcing her to make an exception in this case. Nor does the fact that Mr. Mikowski did not originally request post office box service at all change the application of the rules.
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). Requiring some form of official identification from applicants is certainly reasonable.
Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge