SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Glenn A. Neel

Last decided Fort SmithSep 2025
Decisions 3,495since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent data windows. Glenn A. Neel's 62% approval rate since 2016 sits within the 47% to 79% range observed among the 8 judges whose most recent office on record is the Fort Smith hearing office. These figures are based on 3,495 decisions on record, providing a statistically significant sample size for review. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 62%
Decisions on record 3,495

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Neel. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 26, 2025. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Neel's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Neel
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval trend for Glenn A. Neel has shown notable shifts since 2016. After a period of relative stability, the rate saw a decline to 51% in 2020 before trending upward, reaching 71% in both 2023 and 2024. The 2025 rate of 66% remains consistent with this recent higher-approval pattern. These fluctuations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence you present.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Neel's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Fort Smith hearing office

The Fort Smith hearing office serves you and other claimants across Arkansas and the surrounding region. With 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, it functions as a critical hub for disability adjudication. You can expect a standard hearing process where the focus remains on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can see the Fort Smith hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Fort Smith

Social Security Administration cases are assigned through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is the Fort Smith hearing office, with approval rates on their since-2016 records ranging from 47% to 79%. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions