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

D.C. Circuit

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

287 F.2d 339, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 300, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided February 23, 1961·No. 16006_1·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

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. *340 Summerfield, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. *340 Summerfield, 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.

Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Dfense, 287 F.2d 339, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 300, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

287 F.2d 339 (Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Dfense) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related