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.
Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.
FROM TO SEP FEB DEC FEB AUG SEP AUG AUG RATING FACTORS Not Observed Bottom 10% Next 20% Middle 40% Next Top 20% Top 10% A. SEA OR ADVANCE BASE DUTY How does this officer compare in: NOTE: ITEM (A3) 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 DESPIE 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) Photography 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: ☐ 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: ☐ UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES? (Unsatisfactory) ☐ IF 80% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? ☐ IF 70% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? ☐ IF 30% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? ☐ IF ONLY 10% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? 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. 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? 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 statements 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. Mr. Newhouse has shown a superior grasp of photographic supply details, sound judgment, foresight, devotion to duty and thoroughness in his primary duty as photographic officer. He carries out his depot duties as well as liaison with and assistance to ComAirPac and CinCPac with tact and efficiency, and is firm in administering photographic supply doctrine in this area. As Administrative Officer he is in charge of over 35 civilians and acts as division officer for 40 enlisted men, performing both assignments very well. His personal and military characteristics are the highest, and he is recommended for promotion when eligible. When completed remove carbon paper, forward Pages 1 and 2, not detached, to BuPers. Retain Page 3 for "Officer's Qualification Record Jacket". PAGE 1
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.