In late October or early November of 2017, Claimant met with the Customer for about 90 minutes while working for Respondent. Claimant recommended that the Customer rebalance his extensive portfolio to reduce risk and increase current income. The Customer agreed and the transactions were carried out on November 7 and November 9, 2017.All of these trades were placed in a "fee-based" account where the client could place unlimited trades for the same cost. Therefore, the Customer's sale of the securities did not result in additional commissions to Claimant. On December 5, 2017, Claimant left Respondent and joined LPL Financial. The Customer remained with Respondent, where he had been a client for 15 years.On December 11, 2017, Respondent received a communication from the Customer that he had changed his mind regarding the transactions made in November 7 and November 9, and wished for them to be reversed. The Customer used the phrase "did not authorize". The Customer did not make any other complaints about Claimant nor state in any way that Claimant had misled him.Respondent decided to cancel the trades in order to accommodate the Customer.The Customer was invited to participate in this proceeding. A letter was received from his wife, dated May 24, 2019. The Customer's wife had also been a client of Claimant. The Customer's wife presumably responded for her husband due to his age and medical condition, discussed further below. Critically important is that this letter states that both she and her husband fully support Claimant's request for expungement. She states that at no time did her husband intend to blame or file a complaint against Claimant.The Customer's wife goes on to explain that her husband, who was over 80 years old at the time of the meeting with Claimant, was shortly thereafter diagnosed with a medical condition which causes lethargy and confusion. The Customer's wife states that as a result of his condition, the Customer became unsure of whether he actually wished to continue with the trades and believed that he had a "window" of three to four weeks during which he could reverse the trades without penalty or adverse consequences. The Customer's wife emphasizes that she and her husband do not blame Claimant in any way and that they support Claimant's request for expungement.During the telephonic hearing in this matter, Claimant credibly testified that during his 90-minute meeting with the Customer he explained very carefully to the Customer why he recommended the trades, that the Customer fully understood what was being recommended and that the Customer authorized the trades. Claimant also stated that he saw no evidence at that time that the Customer was incapacitated in any way such that he might doubt the Customer's competence to authorize the trades.Based upon all of the above, the Arbitrator finds that there is overwhelmingly strong and convincing evidence that the trades were properly authorized. Therefore, the complaint, as listed on Claimant's BrokerCheck, is without merit and untrue. It is not to the public benefit that this complaint remain on Claimant's CRD records and the Arbitrator recommends that it be expunged.