Case Name: Frank H. DE FINO, Appellant, v. Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-02-23
Citations: 287 F.2d 339
Docket Number: No. 16006
Parties: Frank H. DE FINO, Appellant, v. Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 287
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
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 Feb. 6, 1961.
Decided Feb. 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 ap-pellees.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Chief Judge, and Bazelon and Burger, Circuit Judges.

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. 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.