Appeal of MICHAEL DISTER - P.S. Docket No. POB 03-40

August 25, 2003

In the Matter of the Petition by

MICHAEL DISTER

3164 Grand Concourse

#2-I

Bronx, NY 10458-1133

P.S. Docket No. POB 03-40

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Michael Dister

3164 Grand Concourse #2-I

Bronx, NY 10458-1133

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

J. Patrick Tyrrell, Esq.

Corporate Law

United States Postal Service

475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6332

Washington, DC 20260-1135

INITIAL DECISION

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Dister after receiving a letter dated January 14, 2003, from Sarah Stevens, New York District Consumer Affairs Representative. This letter informed Petitioner that his post office box service would be terminated because he had not updated his application form (PS Form 1093) to provide required information on “authorized users” of his post office box.

After Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer, action on this case was suspended for a time to allow the parties time to work out a mutually agreeable resolution. They were unsuccessful. On April 21, 2003, Respondent filed 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 was given an opportunity to reply and did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 3558 at the Rockefeller Center Station in New York City for approximately twenty years (Petition; M/SJ).

2. Petitioner last filled out a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box Service, in January 1999. The box was rented in the names Drew Richards and Mike Dister, and included a residence address – 3164 Grand Concourse, #2-I, Bronx, NY. As identification, Petitioner submitted a New York driver’s license with an April 1999 expiration, and an American Express credit card with a May 1999 expiration. The driver’s license number and credit card number were written on the form in a section that is filled in by a post office employee. (Petition; M/SJ, Ex. 5).

3. In late 2002, Petitioner submitted written complaints to various Postal Service officials, describing problems he was having with personnel at the Rockefeller Center Station over service to his post office box (Petition, Ex. C.1).

4. On January 14, 2003, Sarah Stevens, Consumer Affairs Representative for the New York District, wrote to Petitioner, stating that Petitioner had been “asked repeatedly to update PS Form 1093 to no avail,” and that the need for the updated form was “due to mail arriving with several variations of your name.” The letter then stated that the box would be closed because Petitioner had “failed to provide information on the ‘authorized users.’” The letter cited Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Sections D910.3.0 and D910.7.2).[1] (Petition, Ex. A; M/SJ, Ex. 8).

5. On February 7, 2003, the postmaster wrote to Petitioner in reply to Petitioner’s protest. The postmaster stated that “some mail had been arriving addressed to Drew Dister or Mike Richards,” and, therefore, the application needed to be updated. Further, the letter told Petitioner that he would “need to present current, traceable identification for you and any users you designate.” (Answer, Ex. 5).

6. Throughout this process, Petitioner has asserted that the information on his most current Form 1093 is correct and that there is no information to update (Petition, in the form of Petitioner’s January 25, 2003 letter to Postmaster Malloy; Petitioner’s March 10, 2003 Reply to Answer; Petitioner’s Status Report, received April 4, 2003).

7. Pertinent subsections of Section D910 of the current Domestic Mail Manual provide as follows:

Application Procedures for applying for post office box service are as follows:

2.1 a. The applicant must complete all required items on Form 1093, . . ..

b. * * * Other adult persons who receive mail in the post office box of an individual box customer must be listed on the Form 1093 and must present two items of valid identification to the post office.

c. * * *

d. When any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office.

Verification An application for post office box service may not be

2.2 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; [several acceptable items described].

8. Section D910.8.2 of the DMM gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if the customer “refuses to update information on the box application.”

DECISION

Respondent contends that Petitioner’s 1999 Form 1093 became out-of-date, and therefore required updating, because the driver’s license Petitioner had used as identification had expired,[2] and because no identification had ever been provided for Drew Richards. Respondent also asserts that Petitioner must complete the new (2001) version of Form 1093, which requires that he, and any other authorized user, provide two pieces of identification.

Petitioner argues that the information on his January 1999 Form 1093 is current and that there is no regulatory requirement for him to update the form.[3]

The record shows that Petitioner has rented Box 3558 for many years and has a valid PS Form 1093 on file. He has stated, in writing, that his residence address is unchanged and that the authorized recipients of mail, Mike Dister and Drew Richards, remain the same. I find nothing in the DMM rules to require a current box customer to fill out a new Form 1093 each time he renews the box rental or when the Postal Service modifies the form. As for the requirement to present two items of personal identification, I read the DMM provisions as requiring this for new applicants, not for customers who already have an approved application on file. Expiration of Petitioner’s driver’s license is not a matter that requires an update. This is not a part of the form that a customer completes, and is not “information” that has changed, within the meaning of §D910.2.1d. (See Albert Ramseyer, P. S. Docket No. POB 98-91 (I.D. April 30, 1998).

The inquiry that precipitated this case, i.e., over the fact that mail addressed to names other than Mike Dister and Drew Richards was received at Rockefeller Center Station, appears to have been a reasonable action by postal personnel. Once Petitioner made clear that he intended for no persons other than himself and Drew Richards to receive mail at the box, however, the rules required no further action by Petitioner. The post office could then deliver to Box 3558 any mail that was addressed to Mike Dister and/or Drew Richards, or obvious equivalents of those names, and return mail addressed to any other names. If Petitioner intends for any other person(s) to receive mail at Box 3558, he must complete a new Form 1093.

The Petition is granted. The determination to terminate post office service to Petitioner at P.O. Box 3558 is reversed.

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] Numbers of pertinent sections of the DMM change when new editions are published. The applicable current sections are cited in Findings of Fact #7 and #8.

[2] Under current rules, a credit card is no longer acceptable as identification. DMM §D910.2.2.

[3] Petitioner also articulates several other complaints about various actions of Postal Service personnel at the Rockefeller Center Station but, as has been stated in previous Orders issued in this case, these are not matters that will be addressed in a post office box termination case.