ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs unopposed June 11,1996, Motion to Amend Opinion.1 Plaintiff objects to a sentence in the Court’s August 28, 1995, Opinion that states that plaintiff was denied a security clearance. See Mittleman v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, 919 F.Supp. 461, 465 (D.D.C.1995). The Opinion states in relevant part:
Although plaintiff was selected for the job, she ultimately was denied the position because a background investigation conduct ed by the OPM resulted in the denial of a security clearance, which was necessary for the position. The denial appeared to be caused, at least in part, by allegations of misconduct and incompetence concerning plaintiff in the IG’s report.
Upon consideration, the Court amends this portion to read:
Although plaintiff was selected for the job, she ultimately was denied the position after a background investigation conducted by the OPM. The denial appeared to be caused, at least in part, by allegations of misconduct and incompetence concerning plaintiff in the IG’s report.
Accordingly, it hereby is
ORDERED, that plaintiff’s motion is *491granted.2
SO ORDERED.