Documents / Official release
This 1957 U.S. Navy personnel file was released under the U.S. Department of War name. It covers Chief Photographer Delbert Clement Newhouse, CWO-4, USN. It holds Records of Emergency Data from 1955 to 1957, a 2 May 1957 request that changed his home of record to Pensacola, Florida, and vouchers for his dependents' travel. It also includes fitness reports from his time as Photographic Officer at the U.S. Naval Base at Santa Elena Bay, Ecuador, and with the Fifteenth Naval District in 1942 and 1943. The file contains no UFO material.
From the source:Release of 2026-09-18 Incident: 5/2/57, N/A. This file contains the final personnel record of U.S. Navy Chief Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse, who left naval service as a Chief Warrant Officer 4, then the highest Warrant Officer grade. In July 1952, Newhouse recorded 16mm motion-picture film near Tremonton, Utah; the film later became the subject of a Project Blue Book investigation. Project Blue Book was the U.S. Air Force program active from 1952 to 1969 that investigated the nature and origin of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). In addition to documenting routine assignments and training, the file records Newhouse’s career progression as a Photographer’s Mate, a Navy enlisted specialty responsible for photography and related imaging work. Project Blue Book investigators characterized Newhouse as an expert photographer based on his naval experience.
“Headquarters”21 pages
Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.
OFFICERS BEING REPORTED ON to fill out Sections 1 through 5. Sign three pages in the lower left hand corner. REPORTING OFFICER to fill out Sections 6 through 12. Sign all three pages in the lower right hand corner. 4. If Aviator, Indicate No. of Flight Hours Last Two years for Each Type Aircraft (List Most Recent Type First) TYPE OF AIRCRAFT Non-Aviator. TOTAL NO. OF HOURS 5. MY PREFERENCE FOR NEXT DUTY IS: SEA KIND OF DUTY Photographic LOCATION Pacific SHORE KIND OF DUTY Photographic LOCATION West Coast. 6. SECTIONS 6 THROUGH 12 TO BE FILLED IN BY REPORTING OFFICER NAME OF REPORTING OFFICER RANK FILE NO. OFFICIAL STATUS RELATIVE TO OFFICER REPORTED ON L. M. GRANT RADM USN 34644 Commanding Officer. IS THIS OFFICER QUALIFIED TO PERFORM ALL HIS PRESENT DUTIES? YES NO INDICATE MORE RESPONSIBLE DUTIES FOR WHICH HE IS IN TRAINING. (If none, so state) DATE OF EXPECTED QUALIFICATION None 7. FOR EACH FACTOR OBSERVED CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX TO INDICATE HOW THE OFFICER COMPARES WITH ALL OTHERS OF THE SAME RANK, CLASSIFICATION AND CORPS WHOSE PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES ARE KNOWN TO YOU PERSONALLY. DO NOT LIMIT THIS COMPARISON ONLY TO THE OTHERS NOW UNDER YOUR COMMAND. DO NOT HESITATE TO MARK "NOT OBSERVED" ON ANY QUALITY WHEN APPROPRIATE. NO ENTRY WHICH IS MADE IN THIS SECTION WILL BE CONSIDERED AN UNSATISFACTORY REPORT WHICH MUST BE REFERRED TO THE OFFICER FOR STATEMENT. ONLY ENTRIES DESIGNATED IN SECTIONS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 WILL BE SO CONSIDERED. RATING FACTORS Not Observed Within Bottom 10% Within Next 20% Within Middle 40% Within Next Top 20% Within Top 10% A. SEA OR ADVANCE BASE DUTY How does this officer compare in: NOTE: ITEM (AS) TO BE MARKED FOR ALL OFFICERS. 1. STANDING DECK WATCHES UNDERWAY? X 2. ABILITY TO COMMAND? X 3. PERFORMANCE IN PRESENT DUTIES AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2, ABOVE? X 4. REACTIONS DURING EMERGENCIES? X 5. PERFORMANCE AT BATTLE STATION OR IN BATTLE DUTIES? X B. INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY How well does this officer: 1. ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY WHEN SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ARE LACKING? X 2. GIVE FRANK OPINIONS WHEN ASKED OR VOLUNTEER THEM WHEN NECESSARY TO AVOID MISTAKES? X 3. FOLLOW THROUGH DESPITE OBSTACLES IN CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED OR ASSUMED? X C. UNDERSTANDING AND SKILL How well does this officer: 1. UNDERSTAND INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, AND USE SUGGESTIONS OFFERED? X 2. EXERCISE JUDGMENT? X 3. RATE IN TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IN HIS SPECIALTY, IF ANY? (Name Specialty) X D. LEADERSHIP How well does this officer: 1. INSPIRE SUBORDINATES TO WORK TO THE MAXIMUM OF THEIR CAPACITY? X 2. EFFECTIVELY DELEGATE TASKS AND AUTHORITY? X 3. TRANSMIT ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND PLANS? X 4. ORGANIZE HIS WORK AND THAT OF THOSE UNDER HIS COMMAND OR SUPERVISION? X 5. MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE AMONG THOSE UNDER HIS COMMAND OR DIRECTION? X E. CONDUCT AND WORK HABITS How does this officer compare in: 1. ABILITY TO WORK WITH OTHERS? X 2. ABILITY TO ADAPT TO CHANGING NEEDS AND CONDITIONS? X 3. MILITARY CONDUCT—BEARING, DRESS, COURTESY, ETC. X 8. INDICATE YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD HAVING THIS OFFICER UNDER YOUR COMMAND, WOULD YOU: (Check one) DEFINITELY NOT WANT HIM? (UNSATISFACTORY) PREFER NOT TO HAVE HIM? (UNSATISFACTORY) BE SATISFIED TO HAVE HIM? BE PLEASED TO HAVE HIM? PARTICULARLY DESIRE HIM? 9a. Considering All Officers of the Same Rank, Classification and Corps, Whose Professional Abilities Are Known to You Personally, Would You Promote Him: (Check one) UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES? (Unsatisfactory) IF 90% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? IF 70% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? IF 80% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? IF ONLY 10% WERE TO BE PROMOTED?
Not linked to a story yet.
Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. The text was read from the page images by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word. 585 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.