OPINION
PER CURIAM.Jon E. Wiederholt was disbarred by order of this court in 1994.1 He unsuccessfully petitioned for reinstatement in 1999, 2002, and 2005.2 In 2006 Wiederholt again petitioned for reinstatement. A panel of the Area Hearing Committee conducted an evi-dentiary hearing and recommended that he *1048be reinstated.3 The Disciplinary Board rejected this recommendation and recommends that Wiederholt not be readmitted.4
Under Alaska Bar Rule 29(0)(@2) it is incumbent upon this court to either accept or reject the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board concerning a reinstatement petition. We exercise our judgment concerning a recommendation independently, and also independently review the entire record.5 But we afford great weight to the Board's findings of fact.6 "The deference owed to such findings derives from the responsibility to conduct disciplinary proceedings which this court has delegated to the Bar Association."7 There is a presumption against reinstatement after disbarment8 and the petitioner has the
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that (s)he has the moral qualifications, competency, and knowledge of law required for admission to the practice of law in this State and that his or her resumption of the practice of law in the State will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or to the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest[.] [9]
Wiederholt made a persuasive showing before the Area Hearing Committee that he satisfied the requirements of Bar Rule 29(c). This court is particularly impressed by his record of community service as an emergency medical technician.10 But after hearing Wiederholt's testimony, the Disciplinary Board concluded in essence that Wiederholt lacks insight into the reasons for the conduct that led to his disbarment. The Board was therefore unable to conclude that Wieder-holt's reinstatement to the bar would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest.
In light of the customary deference afforded by this court to the Disciplinary Board's findings, and in view of the presumption against reinstatement and the heavy burden imposed on a petitioner seeking reinstatement, this court accepts the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board.11
The petition for reinstatement is DENIED.
BRYNER, Justice, not participatingEASTAUGH, Justice, with whom CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting.
. In re Wiederholt, 877 P.2d 765 (Alaska 1994).
. In re Reinstatement of Wiederholt, 24 P.3d 1219 (Alaska 2001); In re Reinstatement of Wiederholt, 89 P.3d 771 (Alaska 2004). Wiederholt's 2005 petition for reinstatement was rejected without opinion as untimely under Alaska Bar Rule 29(b) which requires the expiration of at least two years from the effective date of any order of the court denying reinstatement before a new petition may be filed.
. One member of the three-member panel dissented.
. Three members of the nine-member Disciplinary Board dissented.
. In re Reinstatement of Wiederholt, 24 P.3d at 1222; In re Wiederholt, 877 P.2d at 767.
. In re Reinstatement of Wiederholt, 24 P.3d at 1222.
. Id.
. Id. at 1223-24.
. Alaska Bar R. 29(c)(1).
. In addition to his full-time job, Wiederholt works three evening shifts per week (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) as an emergency medical technician in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board and the opinion of the dissenting members of the Disciplinary Board are attached as Appendix A. We have edited Appendix A to conform to this court's style and formatting requirements and have omitted internal citations.