Jimmy D. Henson appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2011), we conclude that the adverse administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, we conclude that (1) the administrative law judge’s (ALJ s) credibility determination is entitled to deference, see Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (court defers to ALJ’s credibility findings if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so); (2) Henson failed to meet his burden of showing that his tremors and unusual gait were severe impairments, see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007); (3) the ALJ properly discounted the report of consulting neuropsychologist Vann Smith, see Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, his opinion is not substantial evidence); and (4) the ALJ complied with his duty to develop the record. The district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Henson’s motion to supplement the record.