Alabama Securities Commission

The ASC received information pertaining to Elton Norman and his termination from First Command Advisory Services. The information stated First Command initiated and internal investigation and determined Norman forged client and colleague signatures and produced fraudulent documents related to his client accounts. Norman failed to cooperate with investigations from FINRA and State of Missouri and was subsequently barred from the state securities industry.The ASC investigated the matter and determined the Alabama clients suffered no financial harm as a result of Norman's fraudulent activities.

Bar (Permanent)

Missouri

Violation of Section 409.4-403(c) - Firm continued to employ Norman as an IAR after being barred by FINRA.

Registrant voluntarily withdrew registration

Order of Suspension and Referral to the Administrative Hearing Commission.

FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Norman consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to provide documents requested by FINRA when it began an investigation into possible irregularities contained in certain documents pertaining to Norman's customers at his member firm.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

Indefinite

10/16/2019

First Command Financial Planning, Inc.

Discharged

The firm conducted an investigation, reviewed the activities of Elton Norman, and determined that he violated the First Command Compliance Manual related to "Prohibited Acts and Transactions." Our review found that he signed another person's name on transactional documents and made false entries on client transactional documents contrary to the accuracy of the books and records of First Command.

I CATEGORICALLY DENY HAVING ENGAGED IN ANY MISCONDUCT. AS DISCUSSED BELOW, FIRST COMMAND'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME ARE FALSE, DEFAMATORY AND I BELIEVE WERE MADE TO JUSTIFY TERMINATING ME, TO FACILITATE DISTRIBUTING MY CLIENTS AMONG OTHER FIRST COMMAND FINANCIAL ADVISORS, AND TO FRUSTRATE MY EFFORTS TO FIND SUBSTITUTE EMPLOYMENT. I NEVER SIGNED ANOTHER PERSON'S NAME ON ANY TRANSACTIONAL DOCUMENTS. I REPEATEDLY DENIED THESE ACCUSATIONS WHEN FIRST COMMAND CONDUCTED ITS RUSHED INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF ME. NOTABLY, FIRST COMMAND NEVER PRESENTED ME ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ITS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, EVEN THOUGH I DEMANDED IT THROUGH MY ATTORNEY. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS BECAUSE FIRST COMMAND DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH PROOF - BECAUSE I DID NOT FORGE ANY SIGNATURES. THE "FALSE ENTRY" REFERENCES THAT, AS TO A TOTAL OF THREE CLIENTS, I INCLUDED INACCURATE INFORMATION ON THEIR PAPERWORK. SPECIFICALLY, THESE THREE CLIENTS HAD FILLED OUT APPLICATIONS FOR INSURANCE POLICIES OR OTHER FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND NOT INCLUDED THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS BECAUSE THEY HAD SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO SO BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT IDENTITY THEFT. TO FACILITATE THE PLACEMENT OF THE INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT THE CLIENTS WANTED TO PURCHASE, I INCLUDED A "DUMMY" SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AS A PLACEHOLDER ON THE APPLICATION WHEN SUBMITTING TO THE PRODUCT SPONSOR. I DID SO NOT WITH ANY INTENT TO DEFRAUD FIRST COMMAND OR ANY CUSTOMER, BUT RATHER TO EFFECTUATE THE CLIENT'S EXPRESS OBJECTIVES. HOWEVER, WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT I NOW RECOGNIZE THAT I SHOULD HAVE INSISTED ON OBTAINING FROM EACH OF THESE CLIENTS THEIR ACCURATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER FOR THE APPLICATION, AND I REGRET MY ERROR IN JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO SERVE MY CLIENTS.

SIMPLE WORTHLESS CHECK

Pled guilty