Code of Student Academic Conduct

1. This document is referred to as “the Code.”
2. “Chancellor” means the Chancellor of UA Little Rock.
3. “Law School” means the UA Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law.  Where not otherwise specified, “the Law School” includes component organizations, including student organizations.
4. “Law Library” means the Law School library.
5. “Dean” means the Dean of the Law School.
6. “Faculty” means the Faculty of the Law School as defined by the Law School Constitution.
7. “Administration” means the Administration of the Law School as described in the Law School Constitution.
8. “SBA” means the Student Bar Association of the Law School
9. “Accused” is a student against whom a complaint has been lodged under the Code.
10. A “class-day” is a day in the fall, spring, or summer semester when classes meet, from the first day of classes to the last according to the Law School academic calendar.  Other days, such as days between semesters during reading or exam periods, during orientation, and during pre-semester programs, are not class-days.  Where “class-days” are not specified, a “day” has its ordinary meaning.

1. Relationship with Criminal and Civil Law. The Code operates concurrently with the processes of criminal and civil law. However, when misconduct alleged under the Code might subject the accused to criminal prosecution, the accused may postpone the Code process by “suspending” himself or herself from the Law School until the criminal charges are resolved or until the authorities decide not to press charges. Suspension under this provision has no effect under academic rules; i.e., the suspension does not entitle the accused to a leave of absence or relieve the accused of any academic consequences arising from his or her absence from the Law School. Suspension does not abate the Code complaint, but may not result in any inference against the accused in a Code proceeding.
2.  Relationship with UA Little Rock Policies and Processes. The Code supersedes UA Little Rock campus-wide disciplinary processes for matters within the substantive scope of the Code. It is a defense in a campus-wide process that the alleged misconduct is within the scope of the Code and that the campus-wide process should be suspended pending referral and consideration of the case under the Code. A resolution of a complaint on the merits under the Code precludes a charge under another campus-wide disciplinary process predicated on the same alleged misconduct. A determination at any level of process under the Code that the alleged misconduct falls outside the scope of the Code is not a resolution on the merits, and the accused may be subject to campus-wide disciplinary processes predicated on the same alleged misconduct.
3. Relationship with Law School Policies and Processes. The Code governs only matters within its substantive scope and leaves undisturbed Law School policies and processes outside that scope. The Administration may in its discretion respond to any misconduct, such as non-academic misconduct, that is not within the scope of the Code.
4.  Relationship with Administration Powers. The Code in no way restricts the powers of the UA Little Rock Administration or Law School Administration to preserve the safety and security of any person or property, even when a matter falls within the substantive scope of the Code, regardless of whether the processes of the Code are initiated concurrently.
5. Relationship with Faculty Powers. The Code in no way restricts the academic freedom of the Faculty, even when a matter falls within the substantive scope of the Code, regardless of whether the processes of the Code are initiated concurrently. For example, a Faculty member may impose a grade penalty based on academic misconduct regardless of the existence or outcome of concurrent Code proceedings.

An accused may agree to extend or waive any procedural time limit under the Code.  Extension of time limits with or without the consent of the accused does not relieve the accused of responsibility for violations of the Code.

When the Code calls for notice to a student, it shall be sufficient to (1) deliver notice in person, (2) send an email to the student’s university email address, or (3) send a letter by certified U.S. mail to the address on file with the Law School Office of Student Records.

1.  With respect to emailed notice, a student is responsible for checking their university email address regularly. Notice shall be deemed received two days after an email is sent.
2.  With respect to mailed notice, a student is responsible for ensuring that at all times his or her current address is on file with the Office of Student Records. Notice shall be deemed received three days after a certified mailing.

The Code is designed to anticipate irregular and exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, it is impossible to anticipate all eventualities. When strict adherence to Code procedures is impossible or impracticable, it shall be sufficient that persons charged with responsibilities under the Code act reasonably and consistently with the spirit and intent of the Code so as to achieve justice while also preserving the rights of all persons involved in Code proceedings.

UA Little Rock employees and students shall maintain indefinitely the confidentiality of all proceedings pursuant to a complaint under the Code. Information concerning a proceeding may be disclosed only (1) as necessary to fulfill a duty under the Code, (2) as compelled by law, or as necessary to fully and fairly answer questions propounded by appropriate Bar authorities or employers, to the extent permitted by law, (3) insofar as a proceeding under the Code is open to the public, or (4) as necessary to participate in an informal conciliation, a formal hearing, or other processes under this Code.

1. The accused may waive the confidentiality of the proceedings under this Code.  A waiver of confidentiality by the accused operates as a waiver of the burden of confidentiality for all participants.

It shall be a violation of the Code for a student to commit any of the following acts or omissions.  “Academic” in this part III.A includes both the curricular and extracurricular, regardless of whether academic credit is awarded.

1. Cheating
   1. To give or secure any information about an examination or other academic assignment except as authorized by the course professor.
   2. To use, if prohibited by the course professor, any book, papers, notes, other person’s work, or other written or electronic materials (including artificial intelligence tools) for an examination or other academic assignment.
   3. To use a cell phone and/or any other electronic device during an exam for any purpose if the professor has banned the use of cell phones and/or other electronic devices during the exam.
   4. To continue writing an examination answer after the permitted time has expired.
   5. To take, conceal, withhold, destroy, damage, abuse, or deface property without authorization when the act deprives another student of access to or use of the property for an academic purpose, or to otherwise impede the academic work of another student.
   6. To copy, consult, or use, for an academic purpose, the work of another student without the authorization of that student or the course professor.
   7. To invade the security maintained for preparing, storing, or administration of examinations, or tamper with exam-making or exam-taking software.
   8. to discuss any part of an assignment or examination with a student who has not yet completed or submitted the assignment or examination but is scheduled to do so.
   9. to violate any rule designed to ensure the academic integrity of an assignment or exam.
2. Plagiarism.  To take the written work of another and pass it off as one’s own for an academic purpose.  The following are examples of plagiarism, but not an exhaustive list of situations in which plagiarism can occur.
   1. To use someone else’s words without unambiguous acknowledgment.
   2. To paraphrase someone else’s words without unambiguous acknowledgment.
   3. To use someone else’s ideas without unambiguous acknowledgment.
3. Misrepresentation
   1. To misrepresent a material fact with respect to academic performance or requirements.
   2. For an academic purpose and without authorization and appropriate disclosure, to represent the work of another as one’s own or one’s own work as the work of another, or to represent oneself as another, or to procure representation of another as oneself.
4. Tampering.  To tamper with any document, file, or datum pertaining to academic activity, including student records, journals, examinations, and papers, without authorization.
5. Unfair Academic Advantage Generally
   1. When not otherwise specified as an infraction under the Code, to violate any Law School rule or professor’s course policy with respect to academic performance or requirements, including through unauthorized collaboration, when the violation creates an unfair academic advantage or creates an unfair academic disadvantage for another.
   2. When not otherwise specified as an infraction under the Code, to violate a rule of the Law School applicable to participation or membership in an activity or organization, when the violation creates an unfair academic advantage or creates an unfair academic disadvantage for another.
6. Other Infractions
   1. To create any material and substantial disruption of a Law School academic environment.
   2. Recklessly or intentionally, to furnish false or misleading information on any Law School or other government document, or on any document intended to secure employment, admission to an academic program, or similar competitive opportunity.

1. To knowingly make a false report of a violation of the Code by another student, to knowingly make a false or materially incomplete report, or to give false or materially incomplete testimony in an investigation or proceeding under the Code.
2. To falsify, destroy, or place beyond the reach of an officer acting under the Code any documents, testimony, or other evidence material to an investigation or other process under the Code.
3. Without reasonable excuse, to fail to appear as a witness or to testify when called upon under the Code.  An accused does not violate the Code by failing to appear as a witness or to testify unless without reasonable excuse the accused fails to appear at a proceeding under the Code.
4. To breach a duty of confidentiality under the Code.
5. To knowingly interfere with the administration of the Code.

1. Knowledge of Authorities.  Students are presumed to know the provisions of the Code, the policies and rules of UA Little Rock and of the Law School, and the policies and rules of courses in which the students are enrolled.
2. Voluntariness.  To violate the Code, the act or omission of the accused must have been voluntary.
3. State of Mind.  To violate the Code, the accused must have acted with the state of mind specified in the infraction; if no state of mind is specified, then intent, knowledge, or recklessness is required.  Intent, knowledge, or recklessness may be inferred from the evidence.
4. Recklessness defined.  “Recklessness” means conscious disregard of a substantial risk that the conduct might produce a result or that certain circumstances exist, as appropriate to the case.
5. Attempt; Aiding and Abetting; Conspiracy.  It shall be a violation of the Code to attempt to commit any offense; to aid or abet in the commission of any offense; or to participate in a conspiracy to commit any offense.

1. Available Sanctions.  Upon a finding of responsibility under the Code, one or more of the following sanctions, and no other sanction, may be imposed, subject to the other provisions of part III.D.  Any sanction may or may not be noted in the internal records of the Law School or on the transcript of the responsible student.
   1. Denial of credit for a course.
   2. Downward disciplinary grade adjustment for an assignment or course.
   3.  Administrative withdrawal from a course or from the Law School.
   4. Restriction of library, activity, or other Law School privileges.
   5. Dismissal from a Law School office or activity.
   6. Notation or reprimand.
   7. Disciplinary probation.
   8. Oral or written warning
   9. Educational task
   10. Letter of apology or explanation of conduct.
   11. Compensatory damages or restitution to the Law School or other appropriate entity.
   12. Suspension from the Law School.
   13. Expulsion from the Law School.
2. Imposition of Sanctions
   1. A sanction may be imposed on a probationary or temporary basis.
   2. A responsible student may be offered a choice between a sanction listed in part III.D.1 and an alternative appropriate sanction not listed in part III.D.1, and the responsible student may voluntarily accede to the alternative sanction.
3. Considerations in Selecting Sanction.  In selecting a sanction, any relevant information may be considered, and the following factors shall be considered.
   1. The nature and seriousness of the violation, including the degree of potential harm that the violation posed to the academic integrity of the Law School community.
   2. The circumstances of the violation, including any aggravating or mitigating factors.
   3. The need to uphold and promote respect for the Code and to deter future violation by the responsible student and others.
   4. Whether the sanction will reconcile the responsible student with the Law School community.
   5. Any comments of the responsible student relevant to sanction selection.
   6. The state of mind of the responsible student.
   7. Whether and when the responsible student voluntarily admitted misconduct.
   8. How cooperative the responsible student was during the investigation of the misconduct.

1. Student Officers
   1. Student Justices and Honor Council.  The SBA shall provide for the election of eight Student Justices, one elected from and by each J.D. class (1L, 2L, 3L) and division (part-time, full-time), one elected from and by the J.D. student body at large, and one elected from and by the students in the masters of Studies in Law program. The Student Justices and any Student Honor Counselors appointed by the SBA President (see section IV.A.1.c below) constitute the Honor Council. The SBA shall appoint one Student Justice to serve as Chief Justice of the Honor Council.
   2. Student Investigators. The SBA shall provide for the election, from the student body, of two Student Investigators, one from each division.
   3. Honor Counselors.  The SBA shall appoint, from the student body, two  Honor Counselors and may appoint up to six Honor Counselors.  In addition, the SBA may accept any volunteer per part IV.A.2.c to serve as an Honor Counselor.  The names of all Honor Counselors shall be published and continuously posted to all students.
   4. Dual Service Prohibited; Recusal.  No student shall serve in more than one capacity described in part IV.A.  Any student serving in a capacity described in part IV.A shall recuse from a matter in which the serving student is the complainant, a witness, or the accused, or is otherwise materially connected to the matter under review.
   5. Succession; Replacement.  The Chief Justice shall, promptly upon appointment, publish to the Honor Council a list of Student Justices in a random order of service and succession.  When the Chief Justice of the Honor Council is absent from the Law School, has recused, or otherwise cannot serve, the next succeeding Student Justice who can serve shall serve as Chief Justice for any purpose under the Code.  The Chief Justice shall appoint a replacement, subject to approval by the Honor Council,  for any Student Justice who leaves office or is no longer a member of the class and division that elected that officer.  The SBA shall replace by appointment any Student Investigator who leaves office or is no longer a member of the division that elected that officer.  The SBA shall replace by appointment any student Honor Counselor who leaves office.  (Amendment approved Mar. 10, 2005)
2. Faculty Officers; Non-Student Honor Counselors; Dean’s Designee
   1. Faculty Investigator; Alternate Faculty Investigator.  The Dean shall appoint, from among the Faculty, a Faculty Investigator and an Alternate Faculty Investigator.  The Alternate Faculty Investigator shall serve in place of the Faculty Investigator when the Faculty Investigator is absent from the Law School or has recused.
   2. Faculty Justices.  The Dean shall appoint, from among the Faculty, a committee of Faculty Justices, to be known as the Academic Conduct Committee.  The Academic Conduct Committee shall consist of no fewer than three Faculty Justices and two Alternate Faculty Justices.  The Alternate Faculty Justices shall serve in place of Faculty Justices who are absent from the Law School, have recused, or otherwise cannot serve.
   3. Honor Counselors.  Any UA Little Rock employee who is not a student may volunteer to be an Honor Counselor.  The employee shall inform the SBA of his or her willingness to serve in this capacity.
   4. Dean’s Designee.  The Dean shall designate a member of the Faculty or Administration to serve as the Dean’s Designee.  The Dean’s Designee shall provide for the orientation of newly appointed Honor Counselors. In part (4), the phrase “Dean’s Designee” shall include any representative chosen by the Dean’s Designee to act on the Dean’s Designee’s behalf.
   5. Dual Service Prohibited; Recusal.  No UA Little Rock employee may serve in more than one capacity as described in part IV.A.  Any UA Little Rock employee serving in a capacity described in this part IV.A shall recuse from a matter in which the employee is the complainant or a witness, or is otherwise materially connected to the matter under review.

1. Any person may complain to a Student Investigator or to the Faculty Investigator that a student, the accused, has violated the Code.  A complaint may not be lodged anonymously.
2. A Student Investigator receiving a complaint shall promptly inform the Faculty Investigator.  If the Faculty Investigator receives a complaint, he or she shall promptly inform a Student Investigator.
3. The Student Investigator and Faculty Investigator shall, in joint consultation, investigate the merits of the complaint without informing the accused.
4. If, after investigation of the complaint and discussion between themselves, the Student Investigator, the Faculty Investigator, or both have reason to believe, in light of the complaint and any additional information collected, that the accused has violated the Code, then they shall inform the Dean’s Designee and specify the Code provisions allegedly violated.

1. No more than fifteen class-days after receiving a complaint, the Dean’s Designee shall notify the accused in writing of the complaint and of the provisions of the Code allegedly violated.  The Dean’s Designee shall provide the accused with a copy of the Code or refer the accused to the Code in the Law Library or on the Internet.  The Dean’s Designee shall also inform the accused to the right to an Honor Counselor. The Dean’s Designee shall summon the accused to an informal conciliation, which should occur within ten class-days of the accused receiving notice, unless the Dean’s Designee determines that compelling reasons justify a continuance.
2. The purpose of the informal conciliation shall be to ascertain the truth of the matter presented and to attain a just resolution of the matter consistent with the Code.  The Dean’s Designee may conduct additional investigation in anticipation of the informal conciliation.
3. The accused may choose as adviser an Honor Counselor or any other person not materially connected to the matter.  The accused may seek the advice of an Honor Counselor regardless of whether the Honor Counselor serves as adviser to the accused. The content of any communications between the accused and the advisor is inadmissible during any proceding under this Code, including during any informal conciliation or formal hearing, unless the student expressly consents to admission.
4. Only the accused and the accused’s adviser have a right to be present at the informal conciliation with the Dean’s Designee.  Any other person may be present whose presence the Dean’s Designee determines would further the purpose of the informal conciliation.
5. Procedures for the informal conciliation shall be at the discretion of the Dean’s Designee.  Only the accused and the Dean’s Designee have a right to speak at the informal conciliation.  The accused has no obligation to speak.
6. No separate complaint of a Code violation may arise against the accused as a result of communication during the informal conciliation.  However, a violation of part III.B forfeits this privilege, and a complaint may be lodged if predicated on an allegation of that violation.
7. At the conclusion of the informal conciliation, the Dean’s Designee shall recommend a disposition of the matter, including, if appropriate, a finding of the accused’s responsibility and any appropriate sanction, or order further investigation which may involve the accused and shall extend no longer than 15 business days.  The accused may agree with a finding of responsibility or with both the finding of responsibility and the sanction.
8. If the accused and Dean’s Designee reach any agreement, the Dean’s Designee shall make a written record of the agreement, which the accused shall sign.  If the accused and Dean’s Designee agree on both the finding of responsibility and the sanction, then the Dean’s Designee shall arrange for the execution of the sanction and conclusion of the matter.
9. The accused may void an agreement with the Dean’s Designee by delivering written notice within twenty-four hours of signing the agreement.  If the accused and Dean’s Designee have agreed on both responsibility and sanction, the accused may void the entire agreement, but not one part of it.
10. If the Dean’s Designee and the accused do not agree on the finding of responsibility or on the sanction, the Dean’s Designee shall promptly assemble a Hearing Board in accordance with part IV.D.

1. A Hearing Board shall consist of two Student Justices and two Faculty Justices, each chosen from a list on a random basis.  The Dean’s Designee shall designate one of the Faculty Justices the chairperson of the Hearing Board. If an MSL student is the accused, one of the two Student Justices shall also be an MSL student if possible.
2. The Dean’s Designee shall inform the Hearing Board of the complaint, including information uncovered in investigation and any additional information necessary for a fair hearing, such as documentary evidence, the names of witnesses, and the testimony witnesses may be expected to give.  The Dean’s Designee shall inform the Hearing Board without regard for the inculpatory or exculpatory nature of the information.  The Dean’s Designee shall inform the Hearing Board of any standing agreement with the accused as to responsibility, but not of any voided agreement, of failed negotiations for an agreement, or of any admission of wrongdoing by the accused.  The Dean’s Designee may at any time augment the information provided to the Hearing Board.
3. No more than fifteen class-days after the informal conciliation, the Hearing Board chairperson shall inform the accused in writing of the complaint, of the provisions of the Code allegedly violated, of witnesses the Hearing Board may summon, and of documentary evidence the Hearing Board may receive.  The chairperson shall summon the accused to a formal hearing.  The accused must be given at least ten class-days’ notice of the hearing, but the accused may seek an expedited hearing after receiving the notice.
4. The accused may request that the formal hearing be open to the public.  The request must be delivered to the Hearing Board chairperson two or more class-days before the hearing.
5. The accused may choose as adviser an Honor Counselor or any other person not materially connected to the matter.  The accused may seek the advice of an Honor Counselor regardless of whether the Honor Counselor serves as adviser to the accused. The accused is also entitled to hire an attorney who may participate in the hearing, as long as the accused provides reasonable notice to the hearing board that the accused intends to execute this right.
6. The Hearing Board, the Dean’s Designee, and the accused have the right to compel students and UA Little Rock employees to attend the formal hearing and testify. However, students may not be compelled to testify as to acts that establish their responsibility for an infraction under the Code. To compel a student or a UA Little Rock employee to attend and testify at a formal hearing, the accused must submit a motion in writing to the Hearing Board explaining that the testimony is relevant and not obtainable by other means.
7. The Dean’s Designee shall provide all documentary evidence, including records of witness interviews (if documented), to the accused seven days before the hearing. And the accused shall provide the same to the Dean’s Designee seven days before hearing.
8. The formal hearing shall be bifurcated into a responsibility phase and a sanction phase.  If the accused has agreed to responsibility, then only the sanction phase occurs.  If the Hearing Board finds no responsibility, then only the responsibility phase occurs.
9. The objective of the responsibility phase is to ascertain the truth of the matter and whether the accused bears any responsibility for a Code violation.  In the event of a finding of responsibility, the objective of the sanction phase is to attain a just resolution of the matter.
10. Unless the formal hearing is open to the public, only the accused and the accused’s adviser, the accused’s attorney, and the Dean’s Designee have a right to be present at the formal hearing with the Hearing Board.  Any other person may be present if and only to the extent that the Hearing Board determines that the person’s presence is necessary to attain the objective of that phase of the hearing.
11. The Hearing Board shall elicit pertinent testimony from any witness summoned by the Hearing Board.  The Hearing Board shall hear the pertinent testimony of any witness called by the accused, the Dean’s Designee, or the Hearing Board.  “Pertinent testimony” means only testimony going to whether the accused committed the violation in question, or to the appropriate sanction for the violation, depending on the phase of the proceeding.  Besides the Hearing Board, only the accused, the accused’s advisor, and the Dean’s Designee have a right to question a witness, and only to elicit pertinent testimony.   A witness may be accompanied and advised by any UA Little Rock student or employee of the witness’s choice. The Hearing Board may receive testimony regarding communications between the accused and any other person other than communications specifically exempted from admissibility by the code
12. The Hearing Board shall receive pertinent documentary and physical evidence presented by the Dean’s Designee or the accused.  “Pertinent documentary or physical evidence” means only such evidence going to whether the student committed the violation in question, or to the appropriate sanction for the violation, depending on the phase of the proceeding.  The Hearing Board may comment upon documentary or physical evidence.  Besides the Hearing Board, only the accused, the accused advisor, the accused’s attorney, and the Dean’s Designee have a right to comment upon documentary or physical evidence.
13. The Hearing Board shall permit the accused to speak on his or her own behalf in any phase of the formal hearing.  Only witnesses under part IV.D.9, the accused, the accused’s advisor, the accused’s attorney, and the Dean’s Designee have a right to address the Hearing Board. The Hearing Board shall permit the accused, the accused’s advisor, or attorney to make a closing statement prior to the conclusion of each phase of the formal hearing.
14. Procedures for the formal hearing shall be at the discretion of the Hearing Board chairperson, to be exercised in accordance with the Code.  Within the scope of this procedural power, the Hearing Board may set time limits for the conduct of any part of the formal hearing.
15. The Hearing Board chairperson shall ensure that an audio recording is made of the formal hearing.
16. At the conclusion of each phase of the formal hearing, the Hearing Board shall deliberate in secret to determine responsibility or sanction. Three members of the Hearing Board must agree to any decision on responsibility or sanction.  The Hearing Board’s decisions on responsibility and, if necessary, sanction together constitute “the final disposition of the matter.”
17. To find an accused responsible for an infraction, the Hearing Board must agree that the infraction was established by clear and convincing evidence.
18. The Hearing Board shall notify the accused in writing of the final disposition of the matter, with copy to the Dean’s Designee, within five class-days of the conclusion of the formal hearing.  In the event of a finding of responsibility, the notice of final disposition shall include a statement of the Board’s findings of fact in support of its conclusions on responsibility and sanction.  Any Student Justice or Faculty Justice may augment the Board’s statement with a separate opinion.  Also in the event of a finding of responsibility, the notice shall include a statement that the accused has a right to appeal under the Code.
19. The Hearing Board shall send to the Dean’s Designee the audio recording of the formal hearing and all written materials, including documentary evidence, connected to the matter.  This material, joined with the notice of final disposition, constitutes “the record” in the matter.
20. If the accused is found not responsible, then the matter is concluded.  If the accused is found responsible and the time for appeal expires, then the Dean’s Designee shall arrange for the execution of any sanction.

1. No later than twelve days after the notice of final disposition, the accused may appeal in writing to the Dean.  The accused must file a copy of the appeal simultaneously with the Dean’s Designee.  The appeal must contend that the Hearing Board erred in the finding, in the sanction, or in both, and must state the basis for all contentions.
2. The Dean shall obtain the record from the Dean’s Designee and review the record.  The Dean may conduct any investigation, including interviews with participants in the formal hearing or consultation with the Dean’s Designee.  The Dean may reverse a finding of responsibility, reduce a sanction, or uphold the final disposition.  The Dean may increase a sanction only to preserve the integrity of the Law School as a safe educational environment, consistently with part II.B.4.
3. The Dean shall in writing notify the accused of the Dean’s determination in the matter.  The Dean shall return the record to the Dean’s Designee.  The Dean also shall transmit to the Dean’s Designee a copy of the Dean’s determination, which shall become part of the record.
4. The Dean’s Designee shall promptly arrange for the execution of any sanction upheld by the Dean.

1. Publication.  Upon the execution of any sanction, or upon the conclusion of any matter in which the accused is found responsible but no sanction is imposed, the Dean’s Designee shall post in the Law School a dated public notice stating that a student was found responsible for a violation of the Code; stating the Code provision(s) violated; and stating the sanction(s) imposed.  The notice may take this form:

PUBLIC NOTICE
__________ __, 20__
A student has been found responsible for __________ in violation of __________ of the Code of Student Conduct.  A sanction of __________ has been imposed.

The notice shall remain posted until the end of the fall or spring semester that begins after the notice is posted.

1. Record Retention.  When a matter concludes, the Dean’s Designee shall preserve the record for six years from the date of final decision or the date of execution of any sanction, whichever comes later, and then destroy the record, or, upon request by the accused, transmit the record to the accused.