POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Petitioner, Jacqueline Mills, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s, the United States Postal Service, Motion for Summary Judgment, and upholding its determination to terminate service to P.O. Box 27 at the White Sulphur Springs, NY Post Office. Respondent opposes the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 27 at the White Sulphur Springs, NY Post Office since 1981.[1] In 1999, Petitioner requested that the Postal Service forward her mail to a Long Island, NY address, where she was temporarily relocating for personal reasons.[2] The Postmaster agreed to forward Petitioner's mail even though she did not fill out the required PS Form 3575, Official Mail Forwarding Change of Address Form (hereinafter "Change of Address form").[3] In July, 2001, the Postmaster notified Petitioner that her mail would no longer be forwarded without a properly submitted Change of Address form.[4] Although Petitioner did not file the requested Change of Address form, the Postmaster took no action at that time to close the box or discontinue forwarding Petitioner's mail. In October, 2001, the Postmaster again requested that Petitioner file an official Change of Address form and also notified Petitioner that her box rental fee was overdue and that she needed to submit an updated PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, to continue renting P.O. Box 27.[5]

When Petitioner did not respond to the October, 2001 request, P.O. Box 27 was closed and the mail was returned to sender since there was no proper Change of Address form on file.[6] Sometime in November, 2001, Petitioner telephoned the White Sulphur Springs, NY Post Office to inquire about her mail and was informed that the box had been closed and that the mail had been returned to sender.[7] The Postmaster considered Petitioner to be verbally abusive and threatening during the telephone conversation.[8] By letter dated November 23, 2001, Petitioner filed a signed Change of Address form, but did not fill-in the forwarding address.[9] Petitioner also did not provide an updated PS Form 1093, but did enclose a money order for the overdue box rental fee.[10] Based on Petitioner's threatening behavior and her failure to comply with the Postal Service requirements to complete a PS Form 1093 and a Change of Address Form, a Determination dated December 3, 2001 was issued terminating Petitioner's post office box service.[11] Thereafter, Petitioner filed letters protesting the Determination, which were considered her appeal and forwarded to the Judicial Officer.[12]

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. On May 10, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision in which he found that the undisputed facts established that Petitioner had failed to update her PS Form 1093 in accordance with the Domestic Mail Manual,[13] used her post office box primarily for the purpose of having her mail forwarded to another address[14] and used abusive and threatening language toward the Postmaster.[15] As a result, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent had properly terminated service to P.O. Box 27 and that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. Petitioner filed a timely appeal from the Administrative Law Judge's Initial Decision.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends on appeal that she was improperly denied a hearing and that this office lacks jurisdiction to consider her Petition. Petitioner also contends that she did not act in an abusive or threatening manner and that the evidence presented by Respondent was inadmissible because it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Finally, Petitioner argues that the Postal Service did not properly comply with its own procedures for detaining and returning her mail when her box was first closed and that she should not be required to pay the rental fee during the pendency of this proceeding.[16] Respondent opposes the appeal and requests that the Initial Decision be affirmed.

Under 39 C.F.R. Part 958, the presiding officer may issue an initial decision on a motion for summary judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing when he determines that the Petition and Answer present no genuine issues of material fact.[17] The undisputed evidence presented in this proceeding establishes that Petitioner did not update the required PS Form 1093, even though she no longer resided at the address listed on the form, and that she was using the post office box primarily to have her mail forwarded to another address.[18] Therefore, it was proper for the presiding Administrative Law Judge to grant the Postal Service's Motion for Summary Judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Although Petitioner contends that the Postal Service's evidence was not admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, we find no basis for concluding the evidence was inadmissible or that it should not have been relied on for granting the Motion for Summary Judgment. Moreover, it is well established that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be used as guidance in administrative proceedings, but need not be strictly applied unless required by statute or regulation.[19] There is no statute or regulation requiring the strict application of the Federal Rules of Evidence in this proceeding.

Petitioner's argument that this office does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter also lacks merit. A determination was made to close Petitioner's post office box and the Judicial Officer is the appellate authority within the Postal Service to consider a denial or termination of post office box service.[20] Therefore, this office has jurisdiction to determine the propriety of Respondent’s determination to terminate service to Petitioner's post office box. However, the jurisdiction of this office does not extend to a review of Respondent's compliance with its procedures for detaining and returning mail after a post office box is closed.[21] Consequently, this office does not have jurisdiction to consider whether Respondent complied with its procedures for detaining and returning Petitioner’s mail after her post office box was initially closed.

Finally, Petitioner's argument that she should not have been required to pay the post office box rental fee during the pendency of this proceeding is also rejected. The requirement for Respondent to maintain service during the appeal process does not require that it do so at no cost to Petitioner.

A review of the entire record establishes that the Administrative Law Judge properly granted the Postal Service's Motion for Summary Judgment and correctly upheld the determination to terminate service to P.O. Box 27. Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied.

James A. Cohen

Judicial Officer

[1] Declaration of Postmaster Linda DeCarlo ("DeCarlo Decl.") ¶3 and Exhibit (Ex.) A.

[2] DeCarlo Decl. ¶9.

[3] DeCarlo Decl. ¶10.

[4] DeCarlo Decl. ¶15 and Ex. B.

[5] DeCarlo Decl. ¶16 and Ex. C.

[6] DeCarlo Decl. Ex. D.

[7] DeCarlo Decl. ¶17 and Ex. D.

[8] DeCarlo Decl. ¶¶17 and 18.

[9] Letter from Jacqueline Mills to White Sulphur Springs, NY Postmaster of Nov. 23, 2001, and attachment thereto.

[10] Id.

[11] DeCarlo Decl. Ex. E.

[12] Forwarding Letter from Law Department, New York Metro Office to Judicial Officer of Jan. 29, 2002 and Letters from Jacqueline Mills to Managing Counsel, Law Department, New York Metro Office of Dec. 18 and 23, 2001.

[13] Under Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.2.1(d), "[w]hen any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office."

[14] DMM §D910.3.6 states that "[a] post office box may not be used when the primary purpose is to have the USPS forward or transfer mail to another address free of charge."

[15] Under DMM §D910.8.2, post office box service may be terminated "if the box customer. . . refuses to update information on the box application; violates any standard of care or use of the box; [or] conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive manner on postal premises. . ."

[16] Petitioner also argues that Respondent's counsel failed to provide a requested "sworn notice of consanguinity." There is no such requirement in proceedings before the Judicial Officer and, therefore, this argument has no merit.

[17] 39 C.F.R. §958.3(d).

[18] As the record clearly supports the Initial Decision based on Petitioner's failure to update the required PS Form 1093 and her use of P.O. Box 27 primarily for forwarding her mail to another address, there is no need to address whether Petitioner's alleged threatening and abusive conduct supports the termination of her post office box service.

[19] Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of Wage & Hour Div., 312 U.S. 126, 155 (1941); Calhoun v. Bailer, 626 F.2d 145, 148-49 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 906 (1981); Jacobowitz v. United States, 424 F.2d 555, 559 (Ct. Cl. 1970); Morelli v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 848, 853 (1966).

[20] See 39 C.F.R. Part 958. If Petitioner is arguing that she never intended to appeal the Determination, then her argument regarding jurisdiction is correct. The end result is the same, however, as the Determination to close P.O. Box 27 would then be the final decision of the Postal Service.

[21] See 39 C.F.R. §958.2. See also John Moore and Carolyn Moore, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-105 (P.S.D. Aug. 29, 2001), and cases cited therein.