What standard of proof is required to find guilt in an administrative hearing before a disciplinary board?

The standard of proof required in an administrative hearing before a disciplinary board is the preponderance of evidence. This standard means that the evidence presented must show that something is more likely true than not, essentially tipping the scales in favor of one side. In practical terms, this means that if the evidence suggests a greater than 50% probability that a violation or misconduct occurred, then the board can find in favor of that conclusion.

The other standards mentioned—clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and absolute certainty—are higher thresholds. Clear and convincing evidence requires a higher degree of certainty than preponderance but does not reach the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases and indicates that there is no substantial uncertainty in the mind of the jury regarding guilt. Absolute certainty is essentially unattainable in legal contexts, as it demands total assurance without any possibility of doubt, which isn't a realistic expectation in most legal determinations, especially in administrative settings. Thus, the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate and sufficient for administrative disciplinary hearings where the consequences may not include criminal penalties.