Date: June 18,1999 To: 'i' Via: From: Re: as. Background: s office received that a fraudulent grant NSF in 1994. Accordin at the signature of as forged on the proposal. The grant proposal was declined by NSF. Findings id not sign her name as co-PI on the grant proposal and she did not remember to sign her name. stitutional grant for and had no knowledge of a 3. In 1994, provided separate cost estimates for five separate areas as possible grant projects. The top priority &ea as listed i m e m o dated April 1, 1994, the was selected for use in the proposal. Thou h the 1994 grant is written to renovate the entire and- a eht* budget that was submitted along with the proposal seems to reflect only the cost for the and It appears that, had the grant been awarded, it would not have been possible to complete the project as described in the text of the proposal and based upon the provided budget. The 1994 grant was declined and the 1996 grant proposal was never submitted to NSF. Based on the above information, no significant findings of fraud, waste or abuse of federal h d s was found. The case is closed.
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 1999-06-18.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)