In the Matter of Stephen C.
CBCA · Oct 7, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- CBCA
- Record ID
- in-the-matter-of-stephen-c-2025-10-07
- Observed outcome
- Claim denied; reimbursement of moving costs denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The claimant admitted to using artificial intelligence to generate legal citations in his submission to the CBCA. When the Board ordered him to produce the text of those regulations, he acknowledged they were AI-generated and withdrew them from his argument. The Board denied his reimbursement claim on the merits.
The Board found the claimant was not entitled to reimbursement because he moved voluntarily for his own convenience while his PCS orders were paused due to his indecision regarding a deferred resignation offer. The Board noted the claimant's reliance on AI-generated regulations was unfounded.
This case illustrates the risk of pro se litigants using AI to generate legal citations. It highlights the necessity for adjudicators to verify the existence and applicability of cited authorities when submissions appear unreliable.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Administrative claim for reimbursement of moving costs before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA).
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Claimant admitted using artificial intelligence to create his submission.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.