August 9, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
JANET STONE
P.O. Box 380761
Cambridge, MA 02238-0761
Appeal of Termination of P.O. Box 380761, Cambridge, MA
P.S. Docket No. POB 02-52
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Janet Stone
P.O. Box 380761
Cambridge, MA 02238-0761
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Corporate Law Office
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC 20260-1135
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
Petitioner, Janet Stone, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upholding the determination of the Postal Service Manager of Customer Services at the Cambridge, MA Post Office (hereinafter "Manager") to terminate service to P.O. Box 380761. Respondent, the United States Postal Service, did not file a response to the appeal.
Background
Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 380761 since December 15, 1997.[1] In November, 2001, when Petitioner's annual box rental fee became due, she was asked to update her PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, as required by Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §§D910.2.1(a) and (d).[2] Petitioner claimed she was homeless and, therefore, unable to provide a verifiable physical address as required on the PS Form 1093.[3] Although Petitioner presented a picture identification to the Manager, the identification was no longer valid.[4] Based on Petitioner's representation that she was homeless and in accordance with the Postal Service regulations for Post Office Box and General Delivery Service for Persons with No Fixed Address[5] (hereinafter "PB 22060"), the Manager informed
Petitioner that she needed to provide a verifiable point of contact, such as a shelter, to continue renting the box.[6] Petitioner did not provide a satisfactory verifiable point of contact, and the Manager advised Petitioner that she was terminating Petitioner's post office box service.[7] Petitioner filed a timely appeal from the Manager's determination.
In the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, Respondent filed an Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment in which it contended there were no genuine issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to Respondent's Motion, but despite receiving a three week extension to file her reply, no reply was filed. On June 3, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Respondent had properly terminated service to P.O. Box 380761 based on Petitioner's failure to comply with DMM §§D910.2.1(a) and (d) and PB 22060. He therefore concluded that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Discussion
Petitioner contends on appeal that she has satisfied the Postal Service requirements under PB 22060 because she is well-known to the staff at the Cambridge, MA Post Office and has provided her cell phone number as a verifiable point of contact. Petitioner also reiterates several policy arguments regarding the Postal Service regulations authorizing the rental of post office boxes to persons with no fixed address.
Petitioner's disagreement with the policy considerations underlying the regulatory requirements for post office box service do not provide a basis for relief in this proceeding. As stated in the Initial Decision, Petitioner's policy arguments are beyond the jurisdiction of this forum to consider. The Postal Service has a right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the use of post office boxes,[8] and review by the presiding Administrative Law Judge and the Judicial Officer is limited to determining whether the Postal Service has properly administered those rules and regulations and whether applicants or current box holders have fully complied with the applicable requirements. In this proceeding, there is no indication that there was any impropriety in the application of the post office box rules and regulations by officials at the Cambridge, MA Post Office. However, the undisputed facts establish that Petitioner has not complied with the requirements of the DMM or PB 22060 and, therefore, is not entitled to post office box service.
In order to qualify for post office box service, an applicant must meet the requirements of DMM Part D910 by completing all required items on a PS Form 1093, or, if homeless, the requirements of PB 22060. Petitioner did not include a verifiable physical address on the PS Form 1093 as required by DMM §D910.2, and therefore, she was not entitled to post office box service under DMM Part D910.
Petitioner was also not entitled to post office box service under the modified post office box application procedures for homeless persons as provided in PB 22060. Although Petitioner contends that she has met the requirements of Section 1 of PB 22060 because she is known to the staff at the Cambridge, MA Post Office, it is undisputed that she is not "known as a person with no fixed address" as the Manager has questioned whether Petitioner is indeed homeless based on bills she receives.[9] Therefore, Petitioner does not qualify for post office box service under Section 1 of PB 22060. Moreover, Petitioner has not presented a valid identification as required under Section 2 of PB 22060 and thus does not qualify for post office box service under that provision.
Since the undisputed facts establish that Petitioner does not qualify for post office box service under the provisions of either the DMM or PB 22060, the Manager properly terminated Petitioner's post office box service[10] and the Administrative Law Judge properly granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Initial Decision is affirmed.[11]
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] Initial Decision (ID), Finding of Fact (FOF) 1.
[2] ID, FOF 2. Domestic Mail Manual §§D910.2.1(a) and (d) state that "a. [t]he applicant must complete all required items on Form 1093. . . [and failure to] furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service. . . [and] d. [w]hen any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office."
[3] ID, FOF 3.
[4] Declaration of Patricia Obuchowski (Obuchowski Decl.), ¶4.
[5] Postal Bulletin 22060, p. 89 (Oct. 4, 2001). Postal Bulletin 22060 provides that a homeless person's PS Form 1093 may be approved without a verifiable physical address if
"1. The applicant is personally known to the postmaster or clerk and known as a person with no fixed address. . . [and] provide[s] a verifiable point of contact, for example, place of employment, shelter, charitable institution or social services office, or
2. [If the applicant is unknown] submits one form of proper identification, such as a valid driver's license or other credential showing the applicant's picture and signature. . . [and] provide[s] a verifiable point of contact. . ." Id.
[6] ID, FOF 3.
[7] Id.
[8] See Michael D. Tomsyck, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-168 (P.S.D. Sept. 22, 1998).
[9] Obuchowski Decl., ¶11.
[10] As Petitioner did not meet the other requirements for applying for a post office box as either a known or unknown homeless applicant, there is no reason to address her argument that she presented a valid verifiable point of contact by providing her cell phone number.
[11] Although the termination of Petitioner's post office box service is upheld, she may be eligible for general delivery service. Petitioner states that she has been told that she can only have general delivery service for thirty days, but DMM §§D930.1.0 –1.4 and PB 22060 clearly state that a customer may have general delivery service indefinitely.