U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1961

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 23, 1961 · Miller, Bazelon, Burger

287 F.2d 339; 109 U.S. App. D.C. 300; 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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 ap-pellees.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Richard D. Meehan v. John W. Macy Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission (D.C. Cir. 1968)
William Lyman Dew v. Najeeb E. Halaby, Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency (D.C. Cir. 1963)
King v. Hampton (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1976)
Benjamin R. Begendorf v. The United States (Court of Claims 1965)
Seebach v. Cullen (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1963)
Wolf v. Personnel Advisory Board (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)
DeFino v. Director of Division of Employment Security (Mass. 1966)
Frank M. De Fino v. Raymond M. Fitzpatrick (1st Cir. 1965)
Mary E. Seebach v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director, Bureau of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1964)
May v. United States Civil Service Commission (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1963)
Allen v. United States (Court of Claims 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.