September 24, 1993

Appeal of

ALTINA TRUCKING

Under Contract No. HCR 78182

PSBCA No. 3341

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:

Ernestine M. McGee

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Patrice R. Dickey, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appellant, Altina Trucking, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision of July 22, 1993, in which the Board denied Appellant's appeal of the default termination of its highway transportation contract by Respondent, United States Postal Service.

The Board's rules, at 39 C.F.R. § 955.30, state:

"A motion for reconsideration, if filed by either party, shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds relied upon to sustain the motion, and shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion."

The July 22 opinion was sent to Appellant by certified mail and, according to the mail receipt returned to the Board, was received by Appellant on July 26, 1993.[1] Appellant's motion was first sent by facsimile transmission to the Board on August 26, 1993, which was 31 days from Appellant's receipt of the opinion. A copy of the motion was also mailed to the Board, but Appellant's cover letter reflects it was mailed no earlier than August 30, 1993. The Board received it on September 2, 1993. Therefore, as the motion was not filed (by mailing or delivery by facsimile transmission) within 30 days from Appellant's receipt of the opinion, the motion is untimely. See F.W.H. Motor Transit, Inc., PSBCA No. 1317, 1985 WL 17161, November 22, 1985. The motion does not suggest any good cause for extending the allowable filing period. See Id.; 39 C.F.R. § 955.1 (d)(4)(iii).

Additionally, the motion does not set forth specifically the ground or grounds for the motion as required by 39 C.F.R. § 955.30. Appellant identifies the "grounds" for the motion as (1) the findings of fact fail to accurately reflect the facts of this case, (2) the decision is not adequately based on the facts of this case, (3) the decision misapplies the law and (4) the decision would result in an inequitable and unjust result. The motion does not relate these general categories of error to any particular finding of fact or conclusion of law in the July 22 decision. By failing to do so, Appellant has failed to set forth specifically the grounds on which it relies in seeking reconsideration. As Appellant has set forth no grounds for reconsideration, the motion would be dismissed, even if it were timely. See N.J. Hastetter, PSBCA No. 3064, 1993 WL 338656, September 1, 1993; U.S. Optics Corp., ASBCA No. 21,941, 1979 WL 2359, June 4, 1979.

Appellant's motion for reconsideration is dismissed.

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member

I concur:

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur:

James D. Finn, Jr.

Vice Chairman

---

[1]The return receipt reflects that the date of delivery was to be supplied by the delivery post office, but the specific block for that purpose has been left blank. However, the stamped date of July 26, 1993, appears in the box designated for the signature of an agent receiving the mail. The signature of Appellant's owner appears in the box for the addressee's signature. We conclude that the stamped date of July 26, 1993, although not in the appropriate box on the receipt card, is the date of delivery.