Documents / Official release

Final Personnel Record for Newhouse, Delbert C., U.S. Navy, 1957

U.S. Department of War · 1957-05-02 · 585 pages · text by GLM-OCR

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.

DOW-UAP-PR159 · video · 1952-07-02 Historical Film of Reported UFOs, Utah, 1952 This archival footage is a digitization of a 16mm print of Kodachrome color motion-picture film shot on a handheld Bell & Howell Auto Master camera near Tremonton, Utah, on July 2, 1952. U.S. Navy Chief Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse reported observing and filming a group of bright airborne objects and shortly thereafter submitted the footage to the U.S. Air Force. The film later became one of the visual cases reviewed by Project Blue Book, the 1952–1969 U.S. Air Force program that investigated the nature and origin of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). The film’s limited detail and lack of fixed reference points prevented a conclusive resolution. From the 55-second mark onward, the film transitions to unrelated footage appearing to show a demonstration of sewing equipment. The presence of unrelated sewing-equipment footage suggests that the surviving footage may be a composite or reused print, though the available record does not establish how or when the materials came to be combined. As documented in records submitted with the film, contained in this collection under the title DOW-UAP-D102, the footage originally was paired with mountain scenery from Idaho, which is not preserved in this digitization. Download (76.1 MB)
  • p. 538 …X Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. X Capable of performing routine…
  • p. 539 …operation of the Stock Control Branch in the performance of its mission to give area support…
  • p. 540 …Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties on…
  • p. 541 …The use of his technical knowledge and experience in the administration and control of photographic supplies…
  • p. 542 …instructed.X Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine…
  • p. 544 …X Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties…
  • p. 545 …In leave & travel status 2-3-52 to 2-4-52 Assistant Stock Control Branch Officer…
  • p. 546 …Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties on…
  • p. 548 …Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties on…
  • p. 550 …Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties on…
  • p. 552 …Able to plan and execute missions on his own responsibility. Capable of performing routine duties on…

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

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	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	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 DESPIITE OBSTACLES IN CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED OR ASSUMED? X
C. UNDERSTANDING AND SKILL	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)	Photography X
D. LEADERSHIP	1. INSPIRE SUBORDINATES TO WORK TO THE MAXIMUM OF THEIR CAPACITY? X X
	2. EFFECTIVELY DELEGATE TASKS AND AUTHORITY? X
	3. TRANSMIT ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND PLANS? X 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	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?	X 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 80% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? (Unsatisfactory)	IF 70% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? (Unsatisfactory)	IF 30% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? (Unsatisfactory)	IF ONLY 10% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? (Unsatisfactory)	X 10 OR 50 OVER 50
10. COMMENT IN SECTION 12 AND GIVE REFERENCE HERE TO ANY COMMENDABLE OR ADVERSE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE OFFICER DURING THIS PERIOD.
None
11. HAVE YOU ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS TO MAKE REGARDING THIS OFFICER'S QUALITIES OR PERFORMANCE? HAS HE ANY MENTAL OR MORAL WEAKNESS WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS HIS EFFICIENCY?	Lt. Newhouse possesses a sound grasp of area and service wide photographic supply procedures and has been of great assistance in furthering the policies and instructions of the Chief of the U. S. Naval Photographic Service. He is a mature officer of good judgement with a high order of devotion to duty. Performance of his collateral duties has been uniformly efficient. His personal and military character is excellent and he is recommended for retention of his present temporary rank and for promotion when eligible.
12. Give in this space a clear, concise appraisal of the officer reported on and his performance of duty, including any worthy of special mention. Include recommendations as to promotion. Any state-ments of unsatisfactory performance, ability, character, or conduct must be referred to the officer for statement. Statements of a constructive nature which refer to minor imperfections or lack of qualifications do not constitute an unsatisfactory report. For example: "This officer was a little slow in getting started but is now making good progress" or "This officer is well qualified in his present duties but has had no experience at sea" would not be unsatisfactory in nature.
Check one of these boxes — I CONSIDER THIS REPORT TO BE SATISFACTORY UNFAVORABLE UNSATISFACTORY

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

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.