Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Dfense

287 F.2d 339

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1961-02-23
Topic
general

BURGER, Circuit Judge. Appellant seeks restoration to his former position as an electrician at an Air Force installation. His discharge from that position was upheld by the Civil Service Commission. It is agreed that the statute authorized his discharge only to “promote the efficiency of the service.” Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 § 14, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863. Appellant contends that a “satisfactory” rating received subsequent to the charged acts of insubordination demonstrates that his discharge did not satisfy the statutory criterion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Dfense. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
13 opinions
DE FINO v. McNAMARA,287 F.2d 339(D.C. Cir. 1961)
Frank H. DE FINO, Appellant, v. Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense,
et al., Appellees.
No. 16006.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued February 6, 1961.
Decided February 23, 1961.
Mr. Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
BURGER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant seeks restoration to his former position as an electrician at an Air Force installation. His discharge from that position was upheld by the Civil Service Commission. It is agreed that the statute authorized his discharge only to "promote the efficiency of the service." Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 § 14, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863.

Appellant contends that a "satisfactory" rating received subsequent to the charged acts of insubordination demonstrates that his discharge did not satisfy the statutory criterion. But we have held that "though an employee's ordinary over-all performance of duties throughout the rating period may be rated as satisfactory he may still be guilty of conduct in connection with the execution of his official duties * * * which would justify dismissal * * * in the interest of promoting the efficiency of the service." Thomas v. Ward, 1955, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 302, 304,225 F.2d 953,955, certiorari denied 1956,350 U.S. 958,76 S.Ct. 348,100 L.Ed. 833. See also Jones v. Hobby, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 53,223 F.2d 345. Nor was there defect in the procedures employed here. Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, certiorari denied 1960,364 U.S. 883,81 S.Ct. 172,5 L.Ed.2d 104; Hargett v.Page 340Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85,243 F.2d 29, certiorari denied 1957,353 U.S. 970,77 S.Ct. 1060,1 L.Ed.2d 1137.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.