Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Sec'y of Dfense, 287 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank H. De Fino v. Robert S. McNamara Sec'y of Dfense, 287 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: King v. Hampton (vaed, 1976-05-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" King v. Hampton (2×)
E.D. Va. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Defino v. MacNamara, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 300 , 287 F.2d 339 (1961); Thomas v. Ward, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 302 , 225 F.2d 953 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 958 , 76 S.Ct. 348 , 100 L.Ed. 833 (1956); Armstrong v. United States, 405 F.2d 1275 , 186 Ct.Cl. 539 (1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." DeFino v. Director of Division of Employment Security
Mass. · 1966 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also 287 F. 2d 339 (Ct. App. D.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mary E. Seebach v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director, Bureau of Internal Revenue
9th Cir. · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also De Fino v. McNamara, 109 U.SApp.D.C. 300, 287 F.2d 339 (1961). 2 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 1 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank H. DE FINO, Appellant,
v.
Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, Et Al., Appellees
16006_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Feb 23, 1961.
287 F.2d 339
1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252
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.
Miller, Bazelon, Burger.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
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.