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 OCR, confidence 98%

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)

This page's OCR needs a second look (cut short, looping or weak): read the scan itself.

OFFICER'S FITNESS REPORT NAVPERS-810A (REV. 8-44) PLEASE TYPE THIS FORM If no typewriter is available use ink but be sure all copies are legible. --- NAME *(last)* NEWHOUSE *(first)* Delbert *(middle)* Clement RANK AND CLASSIFICATION Lieut. (jg) USN FILE NO. 177283 SHIP OR STATION Naval Aviation Supply Depot, Philadelphia, Pa. DATE FROM 3/1/45 DATE TO 8/31/45 DATE OF ASSIGNMENT TO PRESENT DUTY 9/13/44 OCCASION FOR REPORT ☐ DETACHMENT OF OFFICER REPORTED ON ☐ DETACHMENT OF REPORTING SENIOR ☑ REGULAR ☐ SEMI-ANNUAL ☐ QUARTERLY ☐ SPECIAL --- 2. DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES SINCE LAST FITNESS REPORT (List most recent first and describe accurately) FROM TO MO. YR. MO. YR. 3 45 8 45 Assistant to Officer in Charge, Photographic and Photo-Lithographic Materials, Supply Department. --- 3. IF COURSES OF INSTRUCTION WERE COMPLETED DURING PERIOD OF THIS REPORT, LIST TITLE OF COURSE, LOCATION OF SCHOOL, LENGTH OF COURSE AND DATE COMPLETED. Are you physically qualified for Sea Duty? ☑ Yes ☐ No ☐ Don't Know --- 4. IF AVIATOR, INDICATE NO. OF FLIGHT HOURS LAST TWO YEARS FOR EACH TYPE AIRCRAFT TYPE OF AIRCRAFT NO. OF HOURS TOTAL --- 5. MY PREFERENCE FOR NEXT DUTY IS: SEA KIND OF DUTY LOCATION CV or Photographic Sqdn. Pacific Fleet SHORE KIND OF DUTY LOCATION Photographic West Coast --- 6. SECTIONS 6 THROUGH 12 TO BE FILLED IN BY REPORTING OFFICER NAME OF REPORTING OFFICER JN-60986 RANK C. L. LYNN CAPTAIN (SC) USNR OFFICIAL STATUS RELATIVE TO OFFICER REPORTED ON ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER IN COMMAND 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) Photographic Officer DATE OF EXPECTED QUALIFICATION 12/1/45 *Comment on special or outstanding qualifications as well as any physical defects, which should be considered in determining the kinds of duty to which he should be detailed. Only comments on qualifications significant in detailing should be entered here. ANY COMMENTS REGARDING FITNESS FOR PROMOTION SHOULD BE ENTERED IN SECTION 12, ONLY.* --- APPRAISAL FOR DETAILED PURPOSES FOR WHAT DUTIES IS HE RECOMMENDED? ASHORE Photographic Officer, NAS or NASD AFLOAT Photographic Officer, CV --- 7. FOR EACH FACTOR OBSERVED CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX TO INDICATE HOW THE OFFICER COMPARES WITH ALL OTHERS OF THE SAME RANK 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 (A) TO BE MARKED ONLY FOR OFFICERS ON SEA OR ADVANCE BASE DUTY DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT 1. STANDING DECK WATCHES UNDERWAY? 2. ABILITY TO COMMAND? 3. PERFORMANCE IN PRESENT DUTIES AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2, ABOVE? 4. REACTIONS DURING EMERGENCIES? 5. PERFORMANCE AT BATTLE STATION OR IN BATTLE DUTIES? B. INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY How well does this officer: 1. ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY WHEN SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ARE LACKING? ☑ 2. GIVE FRANK OPINIONS WHEN ASKED OR VOLUNTEER THEM WHEN NECESSARY TO AVOID MISTAKES? ☑ 3. FOLLOW THROUGH DESPITE OBSTACLES IN CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED OR ASSUMED? ☑ C. UNDERSTANDING AND SKILL How well does this officer: 1. GRASP INSTRUCTIONS AND PLANS GIVEN TO HIM? ☑ 2. USE IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS OF OTHERS? ☑ 3. RATE IN TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IN HIS SPECIALTY, IF ANY? (Name Specialty): ☑ Photography D. LEADERSHIP How well does this officer: 1. INSPIRE SUBORDINATES TO WORK TO THE MAXIMUM OF THEIR CAPACITY? ☑ 2. EFFECTIVELY DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY? ☑ 3. TRANSMIT ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND PLANS? ☑ 4. ORGANIZE HIS WORK AND THAT OF THOSE UNDER HIS COMMAND OR SUPERVISION? ☑ 5. MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE AMONG THOSE UNDER HIS COMMAND OR DIRECTION? ☑ E. CONDUCT AND WORK HABITS How does this officer compare in: 1. ABILITY TO WORK WITH OTHERS? ☑ 2. ABILITY TO ADAPT TO CHANGING NEEDS AND CONDITIONS? ☑ 3. MILITARY CONDUCT—BEARING, DRESS, COURTESY, ETC.? ☑ --- 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 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 50% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? ☐ IF ONLY 10% WERE TO BE PROMOTED? 9b. How many Officers are included in the group used for the comparison in 9a? ☐ 10 OR LESS ☐ 10 TO 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. --- 11. HAVE YOU ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS TO MAKE REGARDING THIS OFFICER'S QUALITIES OR PERFORMANCE? ☐ YES ☑ NO If yes, explain in Section 12. HAS HE ANY MENTAL OR MORAL WEAKNESS WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS HIS EFFICIENCY? ☐ YES ☑ NO --- 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. Check one of these boxes — I CONSIDER THIS REPORT TO BE ☑ SATISFACTORY ☐ UNSATISFACTORY --- Lieut. (jg) Newhouse has performed his duties as Assistant and Technical Advisor to the Officer in Charge, Photographic and Photo-Lithographic materials in a satisfactory manner during the period of this report. He has shown considerable initiative in assuming responsibility for administrative details of this Division and he has demonstrated an outstanding ability in his technical specialty. Lieut. (jg) Newhouse's personal and military character is excellent and he is considered qualified for promotion to the next higher rank when due. He is also recommended for a permanent commission in the regular Navy. This report has been shown to Lieut. (jg) Newhouse. --- SIGNATURE OF OFFICER REPORTED ON *(Applies only to Sections 1 through 5)* [Signature: *Newhouse*] **SIGNATURE OF REPORTING OFFICER

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model (mean confidence 98%); expect the odd misread word. 585 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.