August 22, 2006
In
the Matter of the Petition by
JOHN
AUSTIN
Determination
to Terminate Post Office Box Service for
Post
Office Box 1065
P.S. Docket No. POB 06-92
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
John Austin
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Austin after the Bacliff, Texas Postmaster informed him that Post Office Box 1065 was considered to have been surrendered.
On June 30, 2006, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed an Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Petitioner had no standing to file a Petition, and 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. Attached to the motions was a sworn declaration from the Bacliff Postmaster and some supporting documents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motions and he did so. Part of Petitioner’s reply asked that counsel be appointed to represent him. As there is no authority in this forum to do so, that request is denied. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Sometime in 1994 or earlier, Beverly Austin, Petitioner’s wife, submitted a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box Service, and was rented Box 1065 at the Bacliff Post Office. Petitioner was also listed on the form as an authorized user of the box. (Surface Declaration, Ex. A).
2. On April 4, 2006, Beverly Austin submitted a
PS Form 3575, Mail Forwarding Change of Address Order, to the Bacliff Post
Office, directing that mail addressed to P. O. Box 1065 be forwarded to an
address in
3. Postal regulations state that a post office box is considered to be surrendered if the box customer submits a permanent change-of-address order.[1]
4. Because Beverly Austin’s Form 3575 did not include a termination date, the Bacliff Postmaster treated it as a permanent change-of-address and considered Box 1065 to have been surrendered. The postmaster explained this to Petitioner, not long after April 4, 2006. The postmaster also explained that Petitioner could keep the box if Beverly rescinded her change-of-address order, but that Petitioner would then be responsible for forwarding Beverly’s mail to her. Petitioner did not accept this offer. (Surface Declaration; Petition).
5. The postmaster also told Petitioner that he could rent another post office box if Petitioner completed another PS Form 1093. Petitioner did so on April 19, 2006, and was assigned Box 8121 at the Bacliff Post Office. Petitioner is currently receiving mail at that address. (Surface Declaration; Petition, Form 1093 attached).
DECISION
The scope of the rules in 39 C.F.R. Part 958 is limited to “cases in which a postmaster has issued a Determination denying an application for post office box or caller service, or terminating the box or caller service being provided to a customer.”[2] There is no requirement for a postmaster to issue a written Determination when a box is surrendered.
Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s motions repeats his earlier complaints about how the postmaster handled this matter, but he did not dispute any of the essential facts. By filing a change-of-address order with no termination date, Beverly Austin, who was the boxholder, surrendered the box. It is not our function here to decide whether the postmaster could have done more to clarify, and satisfy, the wishes of his customers. He acted within the parameters of the prescribed rules and we will not overturn his actions. Therefore, because this case does not fall within the scope of 39 C.F.R. Part 958, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Bruce R.
Chief Administrative Law Judge