Frank H. de Fino, Appellant, v. Robert S. Mcnamara, Secretary of Dfense, Et Al., Appellees., 287 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1961)

Federal Circuits, D.C. Cir. (February 23, 1961)

Docket number: 16006


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/frank-fino-mcnamara-secretary-dfense-37900157
Id. vLex: VLEX-37900157

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - Frank M. de Fino, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Raymond M. Fitzpatrick Et Al., Defendants, Appellees., 342 F.2d 769 (1st Cir. 1965)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Mary E. Seebach, Appellant, v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Et Al., Appellees., 338 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1964)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - William Lyman Dew, Appellant, v. Najeeb E. Halaby, Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency, Et Al., Appellees., 317 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1963)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Richard D. Meehan, Appellant, v. John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, Et Al., Civil Service Commission, Et Al., Appellees., 392 F.2d 822 (D.C. Cir. 1968)

Text:

Mr. Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U.S. Atty., 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 dismissial * * * in the interest of promoting the efificiency 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. 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.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access