September 25, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by JOAN B. SCHULTZ P.O. Box 163 Manchester, CA 95459-0163 Notice of Determination to Close P.O. Box 163, Manchester, CA 95459-0163 P.S. Docket No. POB 00-292 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Joan B. Schultz P.O. Box 163 Manchester, CA 95459-0163 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Catherine A. Green, Esq. Corporate Law United States Postal Service 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6112 Washington, DC 20260-1135
INITIAL DECISION (ON REMAND)
On January 26, 2001, summary judgment was granted in favor of Respondent, the United States Postal Service. Petitioner appealed and, on June 21, 2001, the Judicial Officer ruled that Petitioner had presented sufficient information to create a genuine issue of material fact, and remanded the case so that additional evidence could be presented.1
The issue to be resolved was whether Petitioner could present sufficient proof of her physical residence to the Manchester, California Postmaster to satisfy the application requirements for renewal of post office box service.2 The parties waived an oral hearing and both parties were given an opportunity to file additional evidence and argument. Petitioner filed some additional material. Respondent did not. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties since the case was first docketed in August 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Prior to August 23, 2001, §D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 55) stated:
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 . . ..3
2. §D910.3.2 of the DMM stated:
When any information required to be provided by the box customer on Form 1093 changes, the customer must notify the post office of such changes.4
3. DMM §D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if a customer "refuses to update information on the box application."
4. In a change to the DMM, effective August 23, 2001, the section quoted in Finding #1, titled "Proof of Physical Address," has been deleted. The only reference to an applicant's physical address is now in §D910.2.2, titled "Verification," which states:
An application for Post Office box service may not be approved until the applicant's identity and current permanent physical address where he or she resides or conducts business is verified. Verification criteria are as follows:
a. At the time of application, applicants must present two items of valid identification; one item must contain a photograph of the applicant. Social Security cards or credit cards and birth certificates are unacceptable as identification. The following are acceptable identification:
(1) Valid driver's license or state non-driver's identification card.
(2) Armed forces, government, university, or recognized corporate identification card.
(3) Passport, alien registration card, or certificate of naturalization.
(4) Current lease, mortgage, or deed of trust.
(5) Voter or vehicle registration card.
(6) Home or vehicle insurance policy.
b. The identification presented must be current. It must contain sufficient information to confirm that the applicant is who he or she claims to be and must be traceable to the bearer.
5. The provision quoted in Finding #4 is also found in the Postal Operations Manual (POM), which also includes the following guidance on verification:
Consider an application verified if there is no discrepancy between the information on the application and on the identification presented. If the information on the application does not match that on the identification, verification procedures must be followed to substantiate that the applicant resides or conducts business at the permanent physical address shown. Complete this verification within 3 days.5
6. Petitioner completed a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box, on December 28, 1984, and was issued P.O. Box 163. The application was in the names Old Manchester School and J. B. Schultz, at 19750 State Highway 1. (Murphy Declaration, ¶3; Ex. A to Murphy Declaration).
7. Kathleen Paris-Murphy has been the Manchester, California Postmaster since 1988. On December 28, 1999, Ms. Murphy sent Petitioner a letter stating that she had received Ms. Schultz's money order and renewal form for P.O. Box 163, but that more information was needed. Specifically, the letter stated that new regulations required proof of the applicant's physical address, two forms of identification, and that identification information had to be recorded on the form. Petitioner replied, with a handwritten note on Ms. Murphy's letter and with a Postal Service form (Notice 32-N), stating that nothing had changed since her original application. (Murphy Declaration, ¶¶12 and 13; Exs. B and C to Murphy Declaration).
8. Over the next several months, several pieces of correspondence were exchanged between the postmaster, Petitioner and other Postal Service officials, but Petitioner never provided enough information to persuade the postmaster to renew her post office box rental. In August 2000, Ms. Schultz filed her Petition. (Murphy Declaration, ¶¶14-27; Exs. D-K to Murphy Declaration).
9. In her appeal, Petitioner stated under oath that she resides at 19750 State Highway 1 in Manchester, California, and attached a copy of a voter registration card for Mendocino County, California listing that address as her residence. (Petitioner's Brief on appeal).
DECISION
The changes to the regulations governing post office box service (see Findings #4 and #5) have had a significant impact on this case.6 There is no longer a separate section requiring an applicant to submit proof of a physical residence. The regulations simply say that an application may not be approved until the address is verified, and that an address is considered verified if the information on the application matches the information on the applicant's identification. It may be necessary for the applicant to submit some proof if the information does not match, but there is no evidence of a mismatch in this case.7
Further, the words "or a current box customer seeking renewal" have been deleted, so there is apparently no requirement to "re-verify" information on a customer seeking to renew. The requirement for a customer to update the Form 1093 when any pertinent information changes is still in force, but Petitioner has always insisted that her residence has not changed, and Respondent has not proved otherwise.
Based on the above, the Petition is granted and the postmaster's determination to close Petitioner's post office box is reversed.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 A secondary basis for the postmaster's determination was Petitioner's failure to provide information about others who receive mail at her box. That issue was resolved in Petitioner's favor by the Judicial Officer. Petitioner also argued that she should be granted relief based on the doctrine of laches, and because the postmaster had harassed her. The Judicial Officer found no merit in these arguments. Therefore, none of these issues need be addressed in this Initial Decision on Remand.
3 DMM Issue 55 was in effect when this case arose. The current version contains significant changes to the provision quoted above. These are discussed in Findings 4 and 5.
4 This provision is now found in DMM §D910.2.1(d), and in the Postal Operations Manual (POM) §841.122a.(3).
5 POM §841.122a.(4).
6 Respondent has made no argument that the new regulations do not apply here and I find no reason why they should not.
7 POM §841.122b.(3).