1 

 

MINUTES FROM SUPPLY PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 22-1, 

MARCH 9, 2022 

1. General: The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office (DEDSO) convened a virtual 

meeting of the Supply PRC via Microsoft Teams and a teleconference on March 9, 2022. 

Specific discussion topics are identified below. The meeting agenda, briefing material, and the 

Action Item Tracker are available on the Supply PRC web page: 

https://www.dla.mil/SupplyPRC

2. Purpose: DEDSO hosted a Supply PRC to inform stakeholders about the ongoing efforts and 

status on several important topics impacting DoD Components. As part of the meeting, DEDSO 

elicited input from the Components. The topics are: 

• Action Item Review from Supply PRC 21-1 and 21-2 

• Purpose Code Recap

• DLA Non-Cataloged Stock Numbers 

• ADC 1160 Recommending and Authorizing Credit for Validated SDRs 

• PDC 1408 Requisitions with Priority Designator Code 09-15 and Special Requirement 

Category 777 

• Pseudo Routing Identifier Codes (RIC)

• Pseudo DoD Activity Address Codes (DoDAAC)

• War Materiel Requirements (WRM) Procedures

Dr. Gail Fuller, Mr. Rafael Gonzalez, Ms. Tonja Carter, and Mr. Benjamin Breen facilitated the 

meeting discussions. The discussion topics and resulting action items are below. The Action 

Item Tracker contains the resulting action items which, unless otherwise noted, are due within 30 

days from the Supply PRC 21-2 meeting minutes publication unless otherwise stated.

3. Opening Remarks: Dr. Gail Fuller, DEDSO Supply Team welcomed attendees and 

introduced Mr. Nelson Alvarez, Acting Division Chief, DEDSO and Ms. Jan Mulligan, Office of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense – Logistics (ODASD(L)). Mr. Alvarez welcomed 

attendees and encouraged a spirited discussion on the issues being addressed today. Ms. 

Mulligan thanked the DEDSO Team for hosting the meeting and for their efforts coordinating 

this event. Ms. Mulligan addressed a new requirement in the proposed change process. The 

ODASD(L) Team will engage with DEDSO up front in the process prior to full development of a 

proposed change to look for cross Component issues. This will not impact routine minor 

changes affecting existing processes and procedures. 

Mr. Gonzalez provided a brief overview of the DEDSO Website and how to find the previous 

Supply PRC minutes on the Committees Webpage. He also replied to the meeting invite and 

included the link to the DEDSO Website https://www.dla.mil/Defense-Data-Standards/.
2

4. Meeting Topics:

a. Agenda Topic 1 – Action Item Review from SPRC 21-1 and 21-2. Dr. Gail Fuller,

DEDSO reviewed the previous open action items and there was no significant input or updates 

provided from the participants. The six open action items are identified in the meeting slides.

b. Agenda Topic 2 – Purpose Code Recap. Mr. Rafael Gonzalez, DEDSO led the 

discussion and provided a recap of the Purpose Code topic from the October 2021 Supply PRC. 

The last Supply PRC meeting addressed the concept and was a brainstorming session to gain 

Component input. DEDSO is taking a pause to make sure that any proposed changes are 

effective and will meet the Component requirements for segregation of materiel held on their 

behalf in a storage activity/distribution center. The DEDSO team wants to make sure there is a 

complete understanding of how the Services are currently using the RICs with the purpose code

to segregate materiel in storage. The proposed change is still in development and requires some 

additional research before moving forward with the purpose code revisions. 

Mr. Frederick Lloyd, Army Materiel Command (AMC) stated that he sent DEDSO several 

questions related to the Project Code proposal. Mr. Gonzalez replied by email to the questions 

during the meeting.

Mr. Nidal Deeb, Naval Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst, stated the desire to track material better 

by owner. Mr. Gonzalez stated the proposed expansion of the purpose code would allow 

segregation of materiel under the same owner RIC. The intent is to allow greater flexibility for 

the purpose code to support current and future initiatives across the DoD. DEDSO’s goal is to 

reduce the impact as much as possible. Several participants indicated a desire to be included in 

future discussions as this change evolves. Mr. Gonzalez recommended that they maintain in 

contact with their Service Primary Supply PRC Representative. Mr. David Daugherty, USMC

Logistics Command (MARCORLOGCOM) G4 stated concerns with the revised purpose code 

concept, PMR and other concerns and ideas not specifically related to the Supply PRC 22-1 

agenda items. Mr. Gonzalez recommended Mr. Daugherty to setup a separate meeting with 

DEDSO to further discuss these concerns. 

c. Agenda Topic 3 – DLA Non-Cataloged Stock Numbers. Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. 

Amy Walker, DLA led the discussion. Participants that were at the Supply PRC in May 2020 

would have heard about the DLA challenges with non-catalog items moving into the DLA 

Warehouse Management System (WMS) and the development process that is limiting 

customization. Ms. Walker reiterated a long-standing DLA concern with not always having the 

information typically provided in the Pre-Positioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) transaction to 

identify the material. She highlighted some improvements in the number of non-cataloged items 

stored at DLA and stated the numbers went down from 63K to 30K. Ms. Walker stated there is a 

monthly snapshot that goes to the Service point of contacts.

DLA WMS requires a product master record to exist and relies on the PMR and advance 

shipment notification to capture operational/audit attributes. The 832N Catalog Data transaction 

to establish an item master record along with the 527D PMR transaction will be required going 

forward. DLA WMS contacts will continue to be available as needed to move existing non-
3

cataloged items to WMS and get the master data required. The relevant high level WMS 

requirements are:

• Requires a product master record to exist and relies on PMR and advance shipment 

notification to capture operational/audit attributes

• Enforces compliance with current cataloging policy to minimize WMS customization; 

eliminates DLA decision of operational/audit attributes related to Existence and Rights

• For existing items, DLA will require the Services and DLA EBS to send 832N 

transactions to WMS for Product Master creation for non-cataloged items to be stored in 

DLA Distribution

• For future/incoming items, DLA will require the DLMS 527Ds Pre-positioned Material 

Receipts (PMR) to identify ownership upon receipt

Mr. Gonzalez stated that everyone needs to understand the PMR is an essential part of the 

process to enable the warehouse to identify the material and assign the correct owner. This is not 

a new requirement and is a core DoD logistics process.

Mr. David Dougherty, USMC stated there are often limits from the retail community submitting 

a PMR. Non-cataloged items are problematic and there is a concern that materiel rolling off the 

logistics catalog may have items without technical catalog data. DLA asked whether he was 

talking about materiel disposition or distribution, and he stated he was referring to assets going 

from USMC retail to DLA Disposition Services. 

Mr. Gonzalez stated DoD FedMall has the capability to input transaction data in a legacy format.

He also stated draft Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 1244B includes a change in the 856S 

Shipment Status transaction to identify the future owner of the material. This will help DLA to 

identify the materiel owner. There would still be a need to get the local stock number (LSN)

data and there may be a way to address the USMC issue. Regarding the 832N technical data, 

this transaction is currently limited to three narrow scenarios which could be expanded upon if 

solid requirements are identified through the DLMS change process for how the 832N is 

expected to function. Mr. Gonzalez reiterated the PMR policy and restated the existing policy 

against using LSNs between Components. More discussion is likely required about what 

direction the logistics community wants the storage activity to do in these instances. The SDR 

process to resolve these issues takes some time. Mr. Gonzalez briefly mention the need to 

enforce PMR policy and brainstorm about possible ways to get Components to comply. Mr. 

Dougherty stated that the USMC was not a fan of sending materiel back to the owner. If there 

are any questions, please reach out to the DEDSO Supply Team.

Mr. Gonzalez stated the Army controls the management control number (MCN) assignment and 

will ask submitters for the technical data. Mr. Gonzalez believes that the U.S. Army Logistics 

Data Analysis Center (LDAC) has a way to communicate the MCN to DLA offline and to 

identify whether an item is a weapon. Keeping the MCN as part of the data helps DLA with 

storage decisions. There may be a need for a smaller group to work this issue. 

Mr. Dougherty stated a need to have the capability to do free form DLMS transactions like we do 

with MILS transactions to provide to the services. He referenced financial and other system 

blackout periods when they had system implementations and were unable to do DLMS 
4

transactions when they were moving between systems. Mr. Gonzalez recommended a separate 

meeting to further discuss US Marines requirements. 

d. Agenda Topic 4 – ADC 1160 Recommending and Authorizing Credit for 

Validated SDRs. Mr. Troy Brown, HQ DLA J3 Inventory Management and Mr. Gonzalez 

DEDSO addressed the issue reversal and DLA desired to understand if the current manual 

process needs to continue. Mr. Gonzalez clarified the two scenarios for the issue reversal 

discussion (see slide 11) and stated that Option B is more complex in both scenarios – the 

manual process at the end of the day using the D7 to adjust the on-hand balance. 

On slide 12, Scenario A is depicted in a screen image from the existing DLA Distribution 

Standard System (DSS) showing an example of an Air Force owned item where the customer

received the item and sent an SDR for the missing 3 of 5 items. The example illustrates how the 

negative number is used to reverse the receipt – wanted to open this for discussion – this may

require a smaller working group to define what we are going to do in the future.

Mr. Breen asked if it is DLA’s position to do a loss and a gain and work the SDR like with other 

Services and recommend final credit based on the ICP response – Mr. Brown said this is 

currently how it is done for all Services except Navy. Mr. Breen rephrased DLA’s comment and 

stated they want to move to a more typical SDR process and move away from the reversal

process for all Services. The Air Force continues to use an M Series document number. The MSeries document number issue was addressed in past Supply PRCs and separate correspondence 

with the Air Force. (See Agenda Topic 6.)

Mr. Gonzalez asked for input from US Navy and US Air Force. He also stated issue reversals

after the item is shipped to the customer should not happen as the item has been received by the 

customer. Mr. David Childress, Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) N6 and Ms. 

Theresa Sipe, NAVSUP N6 stated they will take these as an action and report to DEDSO any 

findings.

Air Force representatives Mr. William Wenzel, Master Sergeant Nitzia Millis, and Ms. Danielle 

Woods-Lewis, all from Headquarters Air Force A4LR stated that they require more information 

about the root cause of this issue to reverse the shipment. Mr. Brown stated appreciation for US 

Navy and US Air Force taking the action to review this issue. 

Action Item 1. Air Force and Navy identify if the procedures under ADC 1160 are required and 

advise if the manual issue reversal process can be ended. 15-day response requested.

e. Agenda Topic 5 – PDC 1408 Requisitions with Priority Designator Code 09-15 

and Special Requirement Category (SRC) 777. Mr. Damian Alvarez, NAVSUP Weapons 

Support System (WSS) P&D and Mr. Richard Morrow, DEDSO briefed. Mr. Morrow 

introduced the brief – stating DEDSO was contacted by Navy in 2021 with a draft PDC, which 

was formally issued and sent out to the PRC membership in November 2021. Only three PRC 

members responded as of the date of the Supply PRC, so Mr. Morrow wanted to raise the issue 

and let Navy talk about why this is an important change. Mr. Alvarez stated the issue is when 

the Required Delivery Date (RDD) 777 is used, for Navy this is causing items that would be 

shipped by air, to be shipped via ocean means. The reason for the change is current practice is 
5

not in accordance with the Defense Transportation Regulation. If PD 09-15 is used, the SRC 777

will be stripped from the requisition and cause material to be diverted from air to surface 

shipment. This change will leave the SRC 777 untouched. Mr. Morrow stated this change is to 

align the DLMS and the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR). 

f. Agenda Topic 6 – Pseudo Routing Identifier Code (RIC) Ms. Tonja Carter / Mr. 

Richard Morrow, DEDSO briefed. Ms. Carter stated this topic was discussed in previous Supply 

PRC meetings and the Services were working with DLA to reduce the usage of pseudo RICs. 

Ms. Nancy Dean, DLA J345 stated DLA is still getting some pseudo RICs and are using the 

WMS implementation as the point in time to have this issue resolved. Ms. Tiffanie Dew, Army 

Materiel Command (AMCOM) has been working pseudo RICs with DLA and has implemented 

some changes. The Army is also implementing some changes in support of foreign military sales 

(FMS) customers. Ms. Carter asked Army to clarify if the FMS customers are using the pseudo

RIC. Ms. Dew stated they were being used to segregate FMS owned material from regular army 

owned materiel in storage. Army is setting up a real RIC for this purpose, but this will not be 

implemented until 2023. Mr. Jim Weiner, DLA Distribution, stated that Army is taking the most 

aggressive approach to resolve the pseudo RICs. Ms. Carter asked whether it would be possible

to use a real DoDAAC vs a pseudo RCIs or a purpose code? Ms. Dew stated that Army uses 

Ownership Code 8 (which is not maintained by DSS) so they cannot track storage costs by other 

data. Mr. Weiner stated that for FMS assets – when a country returns an item under warranty or

overhaul, that item needs to be isolated and segregated. The FMS items are one-for-one with 

segregation by FMS Case and document number – exact item is repaired and returned for FMS. 

He also stated that Navy FMS materiel goes directly to the maintenance facility.

Mr. Deeb, NAWCAD Lakehurst stated that when Navy moved material to DSS, it was set up to 

segregate by program office owner (Type model etc.) and worked with DLA to segregate using 

pseudo RICs by Program Office to make sure the equipment is segregated. The potential issue 

with the 160 to 170 pseudo RICs and DLAs WMS has been identified. Bottom line – for the 

transition to WMS, Navy has asked for another method other than pseudo RICs and is interested 

in energizing the previous purpose code discussion. Mr. Gonzalez stated the need to have the 

Navy review the documentation from the past PRC related to the purpose code discussion, so the 

current folks are conversant on the proposed solutions. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the proposed 

purpose code changes will only work with a DLMS transaction solution.

Mr. Weiner stated that the Navy Lakehurst items transferred to DLA were not standard and 

outside of the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERM) system and were resident in Microsoft 

Access Database as non-standard stock numbers and outside the normal DSS operation. 

Mr. Deeb stated this was non-standard “Push” outfitting material/support equipment in a system 

called Support Equipment Resource Management Information System (SERMIS).

Ms. Carter asked the Services whether they were projecting a future shortage of RICs. US 

Army, US Navy, and US Marine Corps stated no. The US Air Force – Mr. Wenzel stated there 

was not an issue and they will go back to Air Force Materiel Command (AFMS) to confirm.

Ms. Carter stated ADC 1263 One DoDAAC to One RIC in the DoDAAD was issued to address 

the one-to-one relationship between RIC and DoDAAC. Mr. Morrow stated there were no more 

RIC series to be allocated. He provided examples of using RICs as plant codes in ERP systems 
6 

and using one RIC in supply transactions and assigning another RIC in transportation 

transactions for the same DoDAAC. This was not a practice that was ever envisioned with 

multiple RICs per DoDAAC. Mr. Morrow also stated that ADC 1263 also enforces not using 

multiple DoDAACs for a single RIC. An Army participant stated that internal to the Army they 

have multiple DoDAACs assigned to a RIC. Mr. Morrow clarified that this is not possible to do 

in the official DoDAAD database.

Mr. Dougherty, USMC believes the Marine Corps has resolved this issue and wanted to know if 

anyone could let them know if this was still an issue. Mr. Larry Tanner provided the Marine 

Corps with a report on March 14, 2022 to identify Marine Corps DoDAACs with multiple RICs. 

g. Agenda Topic 7 – Pseudo DoDAAC. Ms. Tonja Carter/Mr. Richard Morrow, 

DEDSO addressed ongoing issues with Services using the incorrect Service Code, specifically 

the Air Force’s continued use of the M Series Service code for Repair items for DLA. Ms. 

Carter commented that ADC 388 addresses this issue and previous Supply PRC meetings going 

back to 2012 and asked when the Air Force will stop this practice. Mr. Breen clarified that this 

practice does not appear to be used in a supply requisitioning process. Service responses were: 

• Navy does not have any pseudo DoDAACs on their side 

• Army was not aware of any pseudo DoDAACs; however, Mr. Morrow stated the 

Army does have many pseudo DoDAACs being used in the subsistence process 

managed by DLA Troop Support 

• USMC was not aware of any pseudo DoDAACs on their side and only use the 

assigned L and M series DoDAACs

After the meeting, Mr. Morrow was able to provide the DEDSO Supply Team with a list of all of 

the pseudo DoDAACs currently being used to order subsistence. The total was about 127 

DoDAACs, half of which were Army. The remainder were spread among the Air Force, Marine 

Corps, Navy. This was down from a total of about 700 at the beginning of the effort to clean 

these up. 

Action Item 2. DEDSO research and forward history on the M-DoDAAC issue for maintenance 

item to the Air force for review. The Air Force POC is william.wenzel.1@us.af.mil. Air Force 

will identify the financial implications of not using the M DoDAAC. 

h. Agenda Topic 8 – War Materiel Requirements (WRM) Procedures. Ms. Tonja 

Carter, DEDSO asked the services if they are still using the WRM process identified in DLM 

Volume 2, Chapter 3, War Materiel Requirements and Simulated Mobilization Exercises. The 

existing chapter states require the services to submit WRM transaction on an annual basis. Navy

– Ms. Elissa Harr stated as far as they are aware, there is nothing that they run and are not using 

this process. US Marine Corps stated they are not sending these transactions. 

Action Item 3. All services to validate the need for the WRM procedures as well as the annual 

requirement as stated in chapter 3. 
7

i. Agenda Topic 9. Wrap Up/Action Items

Mr. Alvarez thanked the participants for the good dialog. Ms. Mulligan thanked the participants 

and the DEDSO team for the work to reinvigorate the process review committee meetings and 

ultimately result in improved support to the war fighter. Ms. Mulligan stated a desire to be kept 

aware of the status and results of the action items. The next Supply PRC meeting is tentatively 

scheduled for Wednesday July 20, 2022.