c. There is no value added to the discrepancy reporting
system by identifying an individual’s inspection number for
reference purposes. These identification numbers would mean
little if anything to the recipient of the discrepancy report.

In the event a reference point of contact is needed to make
additional inquiries applicable to the inspection report, contact
the preparing official listed in block 14 of the ROD or block 1b
of the PQDR. This individual would be the POC for retention and
maintenance of these records.

5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: Avoids wasting time and energy to obtain
and store information which is of little or no value.

b. Disadvantage: None stated.

6. IMPACT:

a. Requires revision to published guidance as stated above
and may impact Service/Agency implementing guidance.

b. Early DRS design called for inclusion of a “badge
number” field to capture the inspector number. This field
should be eliminated as requested by the Component
representatives.

c. Transaction Set: TS 842 (LS71), 2/REF01/260, Code W5
deleted.



. c. Procedures:

(1) Revise DLAR 4140.55/AR 735-11-2/SECNAVINST
4355.18/AFR 400-54, Reporting of Item and Packaging
Discrepancies, Enclosure 3, Item 12, Remarks, General Conditions,
and DLAR 4140.60/AR 12-12/SECNAVINST/4355.17A/AFR 67-7,
Processing Discrepancy Reports Against Foreign Military Sales
Shipments, Enclosure 1, Item 12, Remarks, to eliminate references
to “inspector number.”

(2) Revise DoD 4000.25-M, DLMS, Vol 2 Chap 18,
Appendix 18A, TS 842 Implementation Conventions - Material and
Transportation Discrepancies (publication pending), to eliminate
the entry which reads as follows:

wW5 Inspector Identification Number

Code Value Implementation Note:

Use in SDR/PQDR reports to identify the specific number
assigned to the individual who inspected the referenced
material.

d. Alternative: Retain the data element as is in the TS
842 and regulatory guidance and require the DoD DRS to maintain a
corresponding field. If the information is useful it should be
carried as a discrete data element in the DRS database.
Comments received during staffing indicate that there is no
apparent added value provided by this alternative.

4, REASON FOR CHANGE:

a. The DRS and the supporting regulatory/manual guidance
should match. If the information is not necessary or cannot be
handled in a non-secure environment, then the instructions for
reporting the deficiency/discrepancy should be modified.

b. The signed, or stamped with an Inspector’s stamp, copy
of the materiel received receipt document is maintained in the
Document Control file as an accountable document. If additional
research ia needed that copy would be used and contain all the
necessary information . It appears that just putting the stamp
number on the discrepancy form whether it is done manually or
automated serves very little purpose and therefore should not be
a required entry.



N REPLY
REFER TO

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, SUITE 2533
FT. BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

DLMSO July 25, 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR: DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Approved Defense Logistics Standard System/Defense Logistics
Management System (DLSS/DLMS) Change 1, Recording Inspector
Number When Reporting a Deficiency/Discrepancy (Previously
Staffed by Proposed Change 3)

Attachment 1 is forwarded as an approved change to DoD 4000.25-M,
DLMS, Volume 2, Chapter 18, DLAR 4140.55/AR 735-11-2/SECNAVINST
4355.18/AFR 400-54, Reporting of Item and Packaging Discrepancies, and
DLAR 4140.60/AR 12-12/SECNAVINST/4355.17A/AFR 67-7, Processing
Discrepancy Reports Against Foreign Military Sales Shipments. Under
Approved SDR (ROD) Change 1, the joint Component guidance was renamed
and renumbered as: DLAI 4140.55/AR 735-11-2/SECNAVINST 4355.18A/
AFUMAN 23-215, Reporting of Supply Discrepancies.

This change is effective six months from the date of this
memorandum or upon issuance of a formal/interim change or reprinting
of the above publications, whichever is sooner.

The current status of proposed/approved DLSS/DLMS changes
related to discrepancy/deficiency reporting is at Attachment 2.

You may direct questions to Ms. Ellen Hilert, DSN 427-6117 or
commercial (703)767-6117, e-mail: ellen_hilert@hq.dla.mil.

Defense /Lggistics Management
Standards Office

Attachments
DISTRIBUTION:
Supply Process Review Committee (PRC) Members

SDR (U.S./SA) Primary/Alternate Focal Points

cc:
DUSD(L/MDM) (S. McNeal) Recyeing rove igre on Recycled Paper



PROPOSED/APPROVED DLSS/DLMS CHANGES

SUBJECT DATE ISSUED LEAD CURRENT STATUS
Approved SDR (ROD) Change 1 Approved SDR Focal Approved,
(US), Supply Discrepancy Draft, Point, US dun 24 1996
Reporting Jan 4, 1996
Proposed DLSS/DLMS Change 2, | Jan 31, 1996 ]SDR Focal Disapproved,
Supply Discrepancy Reporting Point, US Jul 2, 1996
for Misdirected Shipments
Proposed DLSS/DLMS Change 3, [Feb 8, 1996 SDR Focal Approved DLSS/
Recording Inspector Number Point, US DLMS Change 1
When Reporting a & SA this date
Deficiency/Discrepancy
Proposed DLSS/DLMS Change 4, | Feb 8, 1996 Supply PRC |S/A replies
DoD Standard Defect Code (Product overdue: Army,
Quality Navy, MC, GSA,
Area) Coast Guard
Proposed DLMS Change 5, Mar 27, 1996 ]|Supply and |S/A replies
Transaction Set (TS) 842, Transpor- overdue: DLMSO
Material and Transportation tation PRC | Followup, Jun
Discrepancies 26, 1996
Proposed DLSS/DLMS Change 6, | Jun 24, 1996 |MILSTRIP S/A review
Material Returns Focal ongoing
Discrepancies Point
Proposed SDR Change 2, Jul 22, 1996 ]SDR Focal S/A review
Consolidating Security Point, US ongoing
Assistance (SA) Discrepancy & SA

Reporting Instructions/
Documentation Retention

Attachment 1



JUL 25 1996
APPROVED DLSS/DLMS CHANGE 1

1. ORIGINATOR:
a. Service/Agency: DLMSO

b. Originator: Ellen Hilert, DLMSO SDR System
Administrator, (703) 767-6117, DSN: 427-6117, FAX:
767-6157/6162, e-mail: ellen_hilert@hgq.dla.mil

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA:
a. Primary: Supply
b. Secondary: N/A
3. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Title: Recording Inspector Number When Reporting a
Deficiency/Discrepancy

b. Description of Change: Current procedures under both
DLSS and DLMS state that the block 12, Remarks, on the SF 364,
Report of Discrepancy, should be used to annotate specific data
such as the inspector number and inspection date. The inspector
number is also accommodated on the Transaction Set (TS) 842,
Transportation and Material Discrepancies, where it is available
for both supply and product quality discrepancy reporting.
During development of the DoD Deficiency Reporting System (DRS),
the Rapid Application Development (RAD) team composed of
functional experts from each of the Components, determined that
this data element would not be an appropriate entry for the
automated system and requested that it be eliminated from the
input screen. The information was deemed unnecessary and
possibly subject to Privacy Act restrictions since the
inspector’s number could also be the inspector’s social security
number. This proposal is intended to bring the regulatory
guidance, the DLMS, and the DRS into agreement on the recording
of the inspector number when reporting a discrepancy/deficiency.

1 Attachment 2