X subsequently appealed this decision to the SEC, and then withdrew the appeal. Accordingly, the NAC decision is the final decision in this matter.

November 2003, a subcommittee ("Hearing Panel") of NASD's Statutory Disqualification Committee held a hearing

1.  "Permitted to Resign" from Firm #1 in June 2000. The Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration ("Form U5") states that a customer had alleged that she received a fraudulent confirmation from X. X contends that Firm #1 added this statement to the Form U5 as retribution for his having left the firm. 

2. "Discharged"/"Resigned" from Firm #2 in April 2002. X resigned his position at Firm #2, which initially reported on the Form U5 that X had been "discharged." X filed a complaint with NASD Dispute Resolution against Firm #2, contending that he resigned his position after Firm #2 began to make deductions from his salary, without his authorization, to settle a customer complaint. The arbitrator awarded X $1,500 and ordered Firm #2 to change the Form U5 language under "reason for termination" from "discharged" to "voluntary." 

3. Four customer complaints have been filed against X. 

1. April 2000. The customer alleged that a margin trade had not been authorized. The alleged compensatory damages were $30,000. The Central Registration Depository® ("CRD") record does not indicate any further action on this complaint. 

2. April 2000. The customer alleged unauthorized use of margin, misrepresentation, and that X failed to follow instructions. The alleged compensatory damages were $7,500. The CRD record does not indicate any further action taken with regard to this complaint. 

3. May 2000. The customers alleged that X failed to execute orders in various securities and that he executed one unauthorized transaction. The2 .- 3 - alleged compensatory damages were $8,500. CRD does not indicate any further action taken with regard to this complaint. 

4. February 2002. The customer alleged that X failed to execute completely the sell side of a day trade. The firm settled the complaint with a payment of $70,000 to the customer. X stated that the complaint was settled without his authorization and that the firm deducted monies from his paycheck without his authorization. X took this matter to NASD Dispute Resolution; the arbitrator ruled in his favor and awarded him $1,500.

Impressed with the 

• evidence that X presented at the hearing that he has been involved with Alcoholics Anonymous since early 2002, following his last DUI arrest, and has completed intensive inpatient and outpatient programs. 
• testimony given by the individuals from the Court Intervention Project about X's so far successful rehabilitation and therapy. 

However, X has only treated his chronic alcohol problem for less than two years. Insufficient time has passed for him to demonstrate that the change in his behavior pattern is fundamental and long lasting and that he can conduct himself in a responsible and compliant fashion in the securities industry. This is particularly true given that X's proposed business activities, the sale of individual stocks to active traders, will involve higher professional risks than selling other product offerings to different investors. 

Lack of disciplinary history for the Firm and the Proposed Supervisor are noted, but these facts do not outweigh the seriousness and recency of X's offense, his history of customer complaints, the relatively short period of his sobriety and the certain pressure that will inhere in pursing the same business activities as those he pursued before the felony conviction. 

Not in the public interest and that it creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the market or investors, to permit X to continue his employment in the securities industry