November 7, 2006

 

P.S. Docket No. POB 06-92

 

In the Matter of the Petition by                                           

                                                                                   

JOHN AUSTIN                                                                                                          

                                                                                   

Determination to Terminate Post Office Box        

Service for Post Office Box 1065                          

Bacliff, TX 77518-1065                                                       

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                     

John Austin

                                                                                   

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                 

Catherine A. Green, Esq.

                                                                                   

 

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

 

            Petitioner, John Austin, has filed a letter of appeal from an Initial Decision in which an Administrative Law Judge granted the Postal Service’s (Respondent) motion to dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.  Although Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a brief was granted, he did not file a brief or any other argument in support of his appeal.

BACKGROUND

            Petitioner's wife rented P.O. Box 1065 at the Bacliff, Texas Post Office in or about 1994.  On April 4, 2006, Petitioner's wife submitted a PS Form 3575, Mail Forwarding Change of Address Order, requesting that mail addressed to P.O. Box 1065 be forwarded.  The form indicated that the forward was a temporary change, but did not include the required termination date.  Because the form did not include a termination date, the Bacliff Postmaster treated the request as a permanent change of address and, as a result, considered P.O. Box 1065 to be surrendered.  The postmaster explained to Petitioner that if his wife rescinded the forwarding order, the box would not be closed and Petitioner could forward his wife's mail at his own expense.  Petitioner and his wife chose not to rescind the forwarding order.  The Bacliff Postmaster did not issue a determination regarding the denial or termination of service to P.O. Box 1065 because he considered the box surrendered.

DISCUSSION

            As stated in the Initial Decision, adjudications of post office box disputes under 39 C.F.R. Part 958 are limited to cases in which a postmaster has denied or terminated post office box or caller service.[1]  Under Domestic Mail Manual (DMM300) §508.4.9.4(d), a post office box is considered surrendered when a box customer submits a permanent change-of-address order.  Although Petitioner was advised that if the April 4, 2006 forwarding order was rescinded the box would not have been considered surrendered, neither Petitioner nor his wife took this action.  Therefore, because the post office box was surrendered, and Petitioner has not shown that the Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law or that any other basis exists for granting his appeal, Petitioner’s appeal is denied.

 

 

 

William A. Campbell

Judicial Officer

 


[1]  39 C.F.R. § 958.2.  See Everett J. Miller, P.S. Docket No. POB 02-428 (P.S.D. Feb. 14, 2003) and George J. Devos, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-111 (P.S.D. Sept. 7, 2001).