D.E.

E. petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to sustain his removal as a civilian employee of the Navy based on E.’s conviction of child molestation. This case presents a question of first impression for this court concerning the Board’s presumption that off-duty misconduct is related to agency performance where the misconduct is egregious. We conclude that such a presumption is unwarranted and reverse.

Petitioner E. was employed as a diesel engine mechanic with a naval facility. On March 10, 1980, E. was notified by letter that the head of his department proposed that E. be removed from his job “for infamous conduct off duty adversely affecting the employee/employer relationship.” The proposal was based on the fact that E. pled nolo contendere to a charge of child moles tation following an investigation of charges that E. had been sexually abusing his then seven-year-old daughter for the past three years. This was the second attempt at removing E. from his job based on the child molestation charge.

The commanding officer of the naval facility decided to remove E. as proposed, stating that “[tjhere is no conclusive evidence that [he has] been…