IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J . K INGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, V IRG INIA 22060-6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION 

May 10, 2013 

SUBJECT: Joint Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Supply Process Review 

Committee (PRC) and Joint Physical Inventory Working Group (JPIWG) Meeting 13-01, 

April18, 2013 

The attached minutes ofthe Joint DLMS Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (13-01) are 

forwarded for your information and action as appropriate. 

The DLA Logistics Management Standards points of contact are Ms. Ellen Hilert, 

(703) 767-0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil, Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, 

(703) 767-0677; or email mary.jane.johnson@dla.mil, Ms. Heidi Daverede, (703) 767-5111 or 

email heidi.daverede@dla.mil, Mr. Luis Madrigal, (703) 703.767.2011 or email 

luis.madrigal@dla.mil. 

Attachment 

As stated 

DISTRIBUTION: 

ODASD(SCI) 

Supply PRC 

JPIWG 

Attendees 

-

Director 

DLA 

... ~NALogisticD C. 

s 

PJPP Management ~ Standards Office 

Federal Recycling Program 0 Printed on Recycled Paper 
IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J . KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

May 10,2013 

SUBJECT: Joint Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Joint Supply Process Review 

Committee (PRC) and Joint Physical Inventory Work Group (JPIWG) Meeting 13-01 , 

April 18, 2013 

Purpose: The DLA Logistics Management Standards Office hosted the subject meeting at DLA 

Headquarters and via Defense Connect On-Line (DCO) for remote participants. This was a 

focused meeting to address maintaining supply accountability during organic depot maintenance 

(Depot Maintenance Inter-Service Support Agreement (DMISA) and intra-Component). A list 

of attendees, the meeting agenda, and briefing materials are available on the Supply PRC 

Webpage: www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/supplyPRC.asp and the JPIWG 

Webpage: www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Cornmittees/JPIWG/JPIWG.asp. Meeting related 

materiel is hyperlinked to each of the topics in the meeting agenda file. 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Mary Jane Johnson (DOD MILS TRAP Administrator), Ms. 

Ellen Hilert (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD MILSTRIP Administrator), Ms. Heidi Daverede 

(Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD MILSTRIP Alternate), and Mr. Luis Madrigal (JPIWG Chair), 

facilitated discussion. Action items are to be worked within 30 days of this memorandum unless 

otherwise noted. 

Review of Meeting Topics: 

a. JPIWG Action Item Status. Mr. Luis Madrigal briefly addressed an action item 

relating to Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) 449. The action item for Army sought to address 

accountability and visibility problems brought about by the use of Military Standard Transaction 

Reporting and Accountability Procedures (MILSTRAP) Document Identifier Code (DIC) DAC, 

Inventory Adjustment- Dual (Condition Transfer), to move materiel between a storage activity 

and an organic maintenance depot. In response to the action item, Army reported they 

implemented a system change specific to their Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). While 

this action item targeted a specific system issue, it brought to light the wider issue that some 

distribution depots are having with visibility of items due to improper use of a Supply Condition 

Code (SCC) M - Suspended (In Work). A later discussion item addressed a modification to the 

definition of SCC M related to PDC 449. 

Attachment, Page 2 

Federal Recycling Program 0 Printed on Recycled Paper 
b. PDC 449, Revised Procedures for Logistics Accountability During MaintenanceDisallows Use of Inventory Adjustment- Dual (Condition Transfer) for Physical 

Movement of Materiel. Ms. Mary Jane Johnson led a discussion ofthe key areas ofthe PDC 

and the Component responses. The stated goal was to reach consensus on approval of that 

portion of the PDC which eliminates use of the 947IIDAC Inventory Adjustment - Dual 

(Condition Transfer) transaction (hereafter referred to as "DAC") as a means to "physically 

move" assets between a storage activity and a maintenance activity; and to understand which 

Service(s) this change impacts (i.e., who uses the DAC for this purpose), so that an 

implementation timeline can be addressed in the ADC. 

(1) Eliminating authorization to use an Inventory Adjustment (Dual- Condition 

Transfer) Transaction as a means to move materiel from a storage activity into a 

maintenance facility (i.e., DAC to SCC "M"), and back again, in favor of using accountable 

issue and receipt transactions for moving assets to and from maintenance. This is the main 

focus ofPDC 449. DOD 4140.1-R policy dictates that the storage activity is "accountable for 

the accuracy of that portion of the total item property record showing the quantitative balance in 

their custody." (See agenda item for "Background DOD Policy".) Use of the DAC transaction, 

to "move" assets between the storage activity and the maintenance depot, violates DOD policy 

because it does not relieve the storage activity of accountability for assets which are not in their 

custody. Elimination of the DAC transaction as a mechanism to record physical movement of 

assets supports policy and the integrity of the accountable record. The DAC remains a valid 

transaction for changing sees within an activity, such as while materiel is in the maintenance 

depot or while materiel is in the storage activity; this change only eliminates use of the DAC as 

the mechanism to record the physical movement of assets between activities. Specific responses 

from the Components during the meeting regarding use of the DAC are as follows: 

(a) Air Force- All three Air Logistics Centers do not use the DAC to move 

materiel in/out of maintenance at the wholesale level; subsequent to the meeting, Air Force 

confirmed that DACs are not used to move assets at the retail level using the Integrated Logistics 

System-Supply. Mr. Tony Scherm (Air Force) is drafting updated Air Force processes to clarify 

procedures and transaction flow applicable to AF maintenance depots. He noted that the D035K 

system executes the transactional exchanges with DLA Distribution Standard System (DSS), on 

behalf of the maintenance depot. This was acceptable to DLA (DSS) and DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office, as long as standard DLMS procedures/transactions are used 

appropriately and DOD 4140.1-R accountability policy is not violated. At this point, further 

review of the AF procedures and transaction flow is required. 

(b) Army - Mr. Oliver Pryor (Army Supply PRC representative) and Mr. 

Kurt Phoel (Army contractor support) stated that national level supply maintenance actions do 

not use the DAC for physical movement of materiel. Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA JPIWG 

Representative) noted that some Army activities provide paperwork to move materiel to 

maintenance and ask the distribution depot, prior to materiel movement, to record the asset in 

SCC M (Suspended- In Work) showing that it is in Maintenance and then change the asset back 

to SCC A (Serviceable- Issuable without Qualification) after it returns. Ms. Hilert noted the 

current Army process is non-compliant, since the Army is asking the distribution depot to change 

the SCC on the DSS accountable records to SCC M, even though the materiel is not in the 

physical custody of the maintenance depot. Army was going to verify their processing and 

Attachment, Page 3 
provide an update as needed. Ms. Hilert led a discussion for an interim post-post procedure that 

would enable the distribution depot to get the materiel off their record, until such time as the 

standard DLMS/MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP procedures are implemented. The storage depot could 

create a post-post requisition and materiel release confirmation (to move materiel in SCC F) and 

maintenance would change the SCC toM using the DAC. This process is not optimal; the 

preferred method is to follow standard DLMS/MILSTRIP/ MILSTRAP procedures, so that there 

is a clear audit trail in the key systems as to the status of a particular asset. 

(c) Navy- The Navy had no objection to elimination of the DAC as a 

mechanism to record the physical movement of materiel. 

PDC 449 Summary: The Components agreed with eliminating use of the 9471/DAC as a 

mechanism to "move" assets. Ms. Johnson will draft an Approved DLMS Change (ADC) for 

PDC 449, and submit the draft ADC to the Supply PRC and JPIWG for a final two week review. 

• ACTIONS: 

o Services, except Air Force, to confirm they are not using the DAC to move 

materiel in and out of maintenance. If they are using the DAC for that purpose, 

provide an implementation date to discontinue the use so that the ADC can 

address an implementation plan to eliminate the process. 

o In addition to the elimination of the unacceptable use of the DAC to move 

materiel, Services that are using other variations of standard procedures (e.g. 

pseudo Routing Identifiers Codes (RICs), hard copy forms to issue materiel while 

in SCC M, and other deviations noted in the discussion of the flow diagrams at 

paragraph c.) must provide a time line for transition to standard 

MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP transactional exchange and their associated procedures. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards Office will draft the ADC for 

PDC 449 to eliminate the use ofthe 9471/DAC for movement of materiel in/out of 

maintenance. The draft ADC will be forwarded to the Supply PRC and JPIWG 

members for final review prior to official release. 

(2) Management Code V (Materiel intended for immediate transfer to 

maintenance, by ICP directed release or maintenance induction, in accordance with agreed 

procedures). PDC 449 proposed deletion of Management Code V. Ms. Johnson noted that 

subsequent to staffing PDC 449, a question was raised whether it would be beneficial to reserve 

Management Code V for an issue from the receiving process. Management Code V could be 

useful to DLA when materiel is received by the co-located storage activity from a non co-located 

storage activity and a "pass through" (issue from receiving) to the maintenance (Agent) is 

desired rather that receipt, stow and then issuing to maintenance. This concept could also be 

expanded beyond the maintenance requirement, for use in filling backorders from receiving. A 

query of the Services and DLA noted that none have implemented Management Code V. 

• ACTION: In the approved change for PDC 449, DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office will document the retention of Management Code V as a 

Attachment, Page 4 
placeholder "RESERVED for Materiel intended for immediate transfer to 

maintenance, by ICP directed release or maintenance induction, in accordance with 

agreed procedures"; with footnote stating that: 

~ Management Code V is not implemented and implementation is on hold subject to 

future development of a standard DLMS solution for procedures for issue from 

rece1vmg. 

~ When a PDC is developed for a standard solution for issue from receiving, 

consideration should be given to expanding the management code for broader 

'issue from receiving' use, not limited to maintenance, if it is deemed appropriate. 

~ An "end date" will be identified for reserving code V for this purpose. If no PDC 

is under development by December 31 , 2014, for a DLMS Issue from Receiving 

process, Management Code V will be marked as "Reserved for future DOD 

assignment". 

• ACTION: Establish a team led by DLA Distribution to draft a PDC to develop a 

DLMS solution for an issue from receiving process, to include requirements for use 

of Management Code V, and a broader definition for Code V as deemed appropriate. 

(3) Procurement Instrument Source Transactions, MILSTRAP DICs D4G, D4H, 

D4L, and D4N. PDC 449 proposed deletion ofMILSTRAP DICs D4G (Materiel ReceiptProcurement Instrument Source (Destructive Test/Evaluation)), D4H (Materiel ReceiptProcurement Instrument Source (Furnished Materiel for Consumption)), D4L (Materiel ReceiptProcurement Instrument Source (Assembly/Disassembly/Reclamation/Conversion/Modification)) 

and D4N (Materiel Receipt- Procurement Instrument Source (Loan)). During the PDC 449 

Staffing, DLA (Distribution Depots) and Army (LMP) reported that these DICs are not being used. 

After the PDC 449 staffing process was completed, a question was raised whether these four DICs 

should be retained and used as the appropriate transactions when Government Furnished Materiel 

(GFM) is involved. 

At this time, DLA Logistics Management Standards Office believes that all DICs employed for 

organic maintenance should have an equivalent DIC for commercial maintenance to ensure proper 

monitoring and accounting of GFM. Pending further research, it is believed that it might be more 

appropriate to receipt this materiel under the controlling contract number than to use the 

corresponding non-procurement source receipt transactions. A possible alternative under the 

DLMS would be to use same DIC for organic and commercial maintenance returns, but to require 

the inclusion of the contract number as a secondary reference when GFM is applicable. Due to 

their current lack of use, it is possible that the correct DIC may not be used in all receipts of GFM 

returned from the government. Components were asked to review current procedures and confirm 

that GFM returns are identified to the appropriate contract number. Further research of the 

documented policy is required to determine if any of these DICs are obsolete due to policy. 

It is understood that the use of D4H conflicts with guidance for the use of Plant Clearance 

Automated Reutilization Screening System (PCARSS), however it might be appropriate to retain 

the DIC for use by exception should the need arise. 

Attachment, Page 5 
During the discussion, it was noted that DLA storage depots are using a D6 _ (Materiel Receipt 

from other than Procurement Instrument Source) for Government Furnished Property (GFP)/GFM, 

but will use the D4M for the return of an item previously issued to a commercial activity for repair. 

Ms. Hilert noted we have lost visibility of the contract number by using the MILSTRAP legacy 

non-procurement source (DIC D6_) transactions, which only identify the controlling document 

number. USAF stated that they use the D6_ to process receipts of GFP/GFM returns; it was 

unclear if the property records were updated to reflect a return against the contract number that 

initially authorized issuance of the GFP/GFM. USAF will submit remarks on their process and 

verify its compliance with emerging GFP policies arising from the OSD DPAP GFP Working 

Group, of which they have been a prominent participant. 

Summary: Retain the four D4_ DICs for now due to the GFP concerns and questions raised 

during this discussion. The DLA Logistics Management Standards Office will coordinate with 

OSD Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DP AP) to document the process before 

validating the subject DICs can be removed. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards Office will research the policy for 

use of these D4_ DICs and will consult with OSD Supply Chain Integration and DP AP 

regarding whether the subject DICs should be removed or retained for use with GFM. 

If determined that the procurement source DICs should be employed, DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office will provide clarification to the Components. If 

determined that the procurement source DICs are obsolete and should be removed, the 

DLA Logistics Management Standards Office will provide an administrative ADC. 

• ACTION: Air Force (Ms. Gloria Torres) noted they will document their process as it 

pertains to GFM receipts and provide to DLA Logistics Management Standards Office. 

Ms. Torres will discuss this GFP issue with Mr. "Quitty" Lawrence (Air Force) and 

determine whether parts of their process need to be documented in a DLMS change. 

(4) Revised definition for SCC M (Suspended (In Work)). Ms. Johnson noted that 

the definition for SCC M requires revision for consistency with DOD policy and removal of the 

9471/DAC as a means to move assets into maintenance. DLA Logistics Management Standards 

Office proposed a revised definition be included in the ADC for PDC 449, as follows: 

Current Definition for SCC M (Suspended (In Work)): Materiel identified on inventory 

control record but which has been turned over to a maintenance facility or contractor for 

processmg. 

Proposed Definition for SCC M (Suspended (In Work)) presented at meeting: Materiel 

identified OR inventory con-trol record but which has beeR turned over to in work at an organic or 

contractor maintenance facility or coRtractor for processing. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING, Ms. Johnson identified the following proposed 

definition as more consistent with the current definition, which states that materiel is at the 

maintenance facility "for processing". Ms. Johnson will include this definition in the draft ADC: 

Attachment, Page 6 
SCC M (Suspended (In Work))- Materiel identified on inventory control record but 

which has been turned over to at an organic or contractor maintenance facility or contractor for 

processing. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards Office will incorporate a revised 

definition for SCC M in the draft ADC being developed for PDC 449. 

• ACTION: Components review the revised definition in the Draft ADC. 

c. DLMS Process for Maintaining Accountability During Organic Depot Maintenance 

(DMISA and Intra-Service). This topic reviewed the flow diagrams that depict the DLMS 

process as documented in the DLMS, MILSTRJP, and MILSTRAP manuals using the appropriate 

transactions to physically move materiel. Before the discussion of the flow diagrams began, the 

DLA Logistics Management Standards Office made a general comment about the recent new 

requirement, documented by ADC 1030, for the DLMS 856S Shipment Status to include the UII 

when available. A proposed change is also being developed to include the UII (when available) in 

the DLMS 856R Materiel Returns Shipment Status transaction. Discussion below is identified by 

chart number from the DLMS Process Flowcharts linked to the agenda at Topic 2: 

(1) Chart 3, Into Maintenance - Co-Located Storage Activity. The Air Force noted 

several areas where their process differed. Their D035K application controls issues to 

maintenance. D035K uses a pseudo RJC to segregate DMISA Depot Level Reparables (DLR) by 

Service. The Air Force provided an overview of their process that uses Ownership/Purpose (0/P) 

codes and use ofD6_ (Receipt) and D7 _(Issue) transaction. Unfortunately, during the software 

development in support of DLA assuming responsibility for Service-owned depots, the D6 _ 

became associated with an issue business event, while the D7 became associated to a receipt 

business event. Air Force expects DSS to create a D6_ Receipt identifying an issue event in 

response to an AS_ from D035K, to "wash" the asset from the owner account to the Air Force 

account. Air Force then uses pseudo RJCs in D035K and DSS to segregate storage for reparables 

by principal account. Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA) noted that DSS does not use ownership or purpose 

code and does not store materiel by 0/P code. Mr. Phoel (Army/LMP) noted that LMP recognizes 

and stores by the 0/P Code. Mr. Ziegler noted that much of the Air Force transactions movement 

is happening within the D035K application and not DSS. Ms. Hilert noted that the transaction 

process used by the Air Force seems to blur owner visibility of the item because the owner is not 

getting an actual transaction that the item has physically moved; it is put into the AF account, but 

remains at the DLA storage activity. Additionally, the owner appears to be getting a DAC to 

change from SCC F to M before receipt by the maintenance depot. From the discussion, Ms. 

Hilert indicated that it seems that the actual receipt from the maintenance depot is missing. The 

maintenance depot should provide a D6 _ Receipt in SCC F before the SCC change to M. The Air 

Force participants agreed to provide flow charts and descriptions of their current process for a 

closer review. 

(2) Chart 4 - Into Maintenance, Non Co-Located Storage Activity. The Air Force noted 

that it generally takes DSS a couple of days to store the item and then turn around and issue the 

item to the maintenance depot. (Ms. Hilert and Ms. Johnson noted this was a scenario where 

Management Code V could work, but it is not part of existing DSS or Service procedures.) 

Attachment, Page 7 
Army LMP noted a problem with the 511R (to requisition item for maintenance) being routed 

back to LMP and not to the intended recipient. The Army started using an A3 _ (passing order) 

to induct the asset. Ms. Ellen Hilert asked whether there were any additional factors that caused 

the change to the A3 _because the 511R should be passed (vice routed) based upon the inclusion 

of Project Code 3BB. Mr. Phoel Army/LMP indicated he would research this and provide 

additional detail of this procedure. A DLMS change to update the DLMS documentation for this 

process may be needed. 

(3) Chart 5, Condition Code Changes while in Maintenance. No issues or comments 

from meeting participants. 

(4) Chart 6, Out of Maintenance- Serviceable. DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office asked if the Services sometimes ship assets directly from a maintenance depot 

to a customer. The Army noted that they do ship some materiel directly to the customer from 

maintenance. The Navy indicated this is not normally done, and the Air Force indicated this is 

not done. DLA Logistics Management Standards Office requested Army verify ifLMP is 

transmitting a DLMS 856S (Shipment Status) when they ship direct to a customer. 

(5) Chart 7, Out of Maintenance- Condemned. Navy and Air Force use the co-located 

storage activity to transship materiel in SCC H (Unserviceable (Condemned)) to DLA 

Disposition Services. The Army was not certain if they send condemned material to DLA 

Disposition Services directly from the maintenance depot or if it goes through the co-located 

storage activity. DLA was fairly certain that any materiel processed by a co-located DSS storage 

activity, for shipment to DLA Disposition Services on behalf of the maintenance depot, is 

processed as a crossdock/transship (i.e. not stored by DLA). The process shown in this slide will 

be updated to depict routing through a co-located storage Activity. A general comment was 

made about following demilitarization procedures before shipping material to DLA Disposition 

Services when using DSS as the trans-shipment point. It was also noted that in lieu of using an 

A5J to release the materiel from the maintenance depot for shipment to DLA Disposition 

Services, some Components use a DAC to SCC H with Management Code M "(Materiel 

condemned. Quantity indicated shipped direct to the DLA Disposition Services Field Office or 

other authorized/required disposal action has been taken.)". 

(6) Chart 9, FTA Automatic Returns. The Army noted a difference after Step lB 

(FT A forwarded from SICA to PICA); there is a 940R Materiel Release SCC F from the SICA 

back to the reporting activity, then a 945A Materiel Release Confirmation that the asset was 

shipped (from reporting activity to the SICA). This relates to the Army single stock fund using 

the Non Consumable Item Materiel Support Code (NIMSC) 5 process. The SICA has visibility 

of assets; when the tactical unit turns materiel in to the single stock fund site materiel flagged as 

a NIMSC 5, the reporting activity sends a 527R Receipt in SCC F to the SICA. Upon receipt of 

the 527R by the SICA, the SICA (in lieu of the reporting activity) automatically generates the 

FTA based on the reporting activity's 527R SCC F receipt. Army may need to submit a PDC to 

document this variation of the process, but in principle there was no disagreement with the actual 

process. 

• ACTION: Air Force will send charts and flow descriptions (including the existing 

pseudo RIC scenario) to DLA Logistics Management Standards Office for review. 

Attachment, Page 8 
• ACTION: Army (LMP/Mr. Kurt Phoel) provide additional process details regarding 

the issue resulting in use of the A3 _ (Passing Order) versus the 511 R (Requisition) to 

trigger induction into maintenance. 

• ACTION: Army (LMP/Mr. Oliver Pryor) provide additional information on the 

process used by LMP to ship materiel directly to the customer from maintenance and 

whether maintenance generates an 856S Shipment Status to the customer. 

• ACTION: Navy (Shannon Winters) to advise if they are using the distribution depot 

as a transshipper to move condemned materiel from maintenance to DLA Disposition 

Services. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards Office update the flowchart (and 

narrative file) for chart 7, Out of Maintenance - Condemned, and repost the updated file 

linked to the meeting Agenda by May 24,2013. The chart will be updated to depict 

routing through a co-located storage activity. Additional update will add an alternative 

flow in lieu of the A5J from the owner; for the Maintenance Depot telling the owner that 

the item is being condemned (DAC to SCC H), with Management Code M. 

• ACTION: Navy to validate if the PICA is doing a PMR to the maintenance depot for 

automatic returns. 

d. Additional DLA Logistics Management Standards Office Questions: Four 

background questions were addressed to the Components in advance of this meeting. The 

questions and responses received to date are shown below: 

(1) Shipment Status: Are any of the Services maintenance activities generating shipment 

status (DLMS 856S/DIC AS_) out of maintenance? The maintenance activity is required to 

provide either the DLMS shipment status or a Wide Area Workflow 856 under DLMS 

procedures? 

(a) Army: LMP does generate the shipment status out of maintenance. 

(b) Navy: Only for internal organic reports, not in support ofDMISA. At this time 

there does not appear to be any transactional link between any Service Organic Depot and its 

DMISA supported customers. In fact, NAVSUP Weapon System Support (WSS) Philadelphia is 

currently working an initiative to establish WebCAV (Contractor Asset Visibility) reporting at 

Tobyhanna Army Depot (TY AD) for NA VSUP WSS Philadelphia Depot Repaired components 

supported via DMISA at TY AD to overcome this deficiency. 

(c) USMC will check. 

(d) Air Force will check. 

(e) DLA Logistics Management Standards Office Response: Transactional 

notification of shipment is a current DLMS requirement and must be addressed by non-compliant 

systems. This becomes even more critical as the DoD implements Item Unique Identification 

Attachment, Page 9 
(IUID). IUID data content will be carried in the DLMS 856S/WAWF 856 to show movement of 

these items. 

(2) Navy question relating to MILSTRIP C2.22. Requisitioning Reparables for 

Induction to Maintenance, MILSTRIP C2.22.2.2. "Navy: For Navy principals (RIC ToN**), 

use Signal Code Bin rp 51 and Fund Code 26 in rp 52-53. If RIC To is N32, use N00383 in rp 

45-50; if RIC To is N35, use N00104 in rp 45-50. Question: How do we update this sentence 

for RIC To NRP? 

(a) Navy: This is a major topic- we have spent a long time working with Tobyhanna 

on how to requisition carcasses. Navy needs to gather broader SME input. Typically, the Fleet 

Repair Centers (FRC) use Signal Code M and Fund Code 26, and a Navy unit identification code 

(UIC) in the document number. This did not work for Tobyhanna (W UIC). Not wild about 

using N00383/N00104/N00391, because this is initiated by the depot, not by WSS. As far as 

N32/N35/NRP, obviously the RIC-To should be NRP, although this does not differentiate if it's 

Mechanicsburg or Philadelphia. In that respect, N00391 is ok ... but still prefer the depot's 

DoDAAC (or we could establish new Navy DoDAACs for the depots for this purpose, like DLA 

did for BRAC SS&D/IMSP). 

(b) DLA Logistics Management Standards Office: Request Navy submit a DLMS 

change to update MILSTRIP C2.22 to reflect appropriate data entries in the requisition to induct 

reparables into maintenance. 

(3) Prepositioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) Timing Question. Reference Chart 4, Into 

Maintenance -Non Co-Located Storage Activity. PMRs (DLMS 527D/DIC DW _) can be sent 

well in advance of when the materiel will be received. Would the owner/ICP wait for the 

527R/DIC D6K Receipt transaction from the co-located storage activity to send the PMR to the 

maintenance depot, or would they send it simultaneous with the PMR they send to the co-located 

storage activity since they know that the materiel will then be sent to maintenance? 

(a) Army: ACTION item to provide input on whether they have any Army owned 

items being repaired by other service depots. 

(b) Navy: Navy does not send the PMR to the maintenance activity until the materiel 

is received at the storage depot. Navy wants to make sure the materiel is in their custody prior to 

sending advanced notification of shipment to the maintenance activity for materiel that has the 

potential of not even making it to the depot. 

(4) Automatic Returns (MRP) FTA Process for Interservice Organic Depot Maintenance. 

Component verification is needed for this interpretation ofthe Automatic Returns (FTA) process 

for inter-service unserviceable items. Assumption: After the materiel is received by the co-located 

storage activity, the transaction processes depicted in the initial (Into Maintenance, Co-Located 

Storage Activity) chart applies. 

(a) Navy: Yes, once the MRP materiel is received at the storage depot, normal supply 

processes apply. It should NOT be assumed that the retrograde immediately goes into repair, nor 

even that the repair activity is an organic depot. 

Attachment, Page 1 0 
e. Air Force Point Paper on Maintaining Accountability during Organic Depot 

Maintenance. The Air Force Point Paper contains a summary of their process discussed in 

detail during the DAC and process flow discussions. One ofthe Air Force participants (Mr. 

Tony Scherm) noted additional input would be provided to clarify the current process and 

address questions raised during the meeting 

• ACTION: Air Force provide additional background and input to questions raised 

before and during the meeting. 

f. DLA Point Paper- Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA) provided additional comments beyond 

what was included in their input (DLA Input) on use of the DAC at co-located maintenance sites 

in lieu of the A5/D6. 

~ All services have the same type of interface issues - DLA then has to accommodate the 

Services and ends up in a non-Audit ready position. 

~ At Corpus Christi - cited as a Navy problem not being able to interface (see DLA Input) 

~ The DAC process causes problems when done to document the materiel movement, also 

causes situations where DLA holds assets on their books and never get the materiel 

returned and will have to take to loss eventually. No audit trail. 

During this discussion Mr. Kurt Phoel (Army) noted that Tobyhanna is building the DAC 

transactions from data on the hard copy of a local form (1549). Mr. Phoel will look at Tobyhanna 

to see if there is a site specific issue, as three of the four depots appear to be doing it correctly. 

Mr. Ziegler noted that the feedback DT ,A received was directly from the accountable officer at the 

sites, and reiterated that the current off-line process cannot continue forever. Ms. Hilert added a 

comment on this issue related to Tobyhanna and noted the Marine Corps would receive a postpost requisition and release confirmation transactions to drop the item from inventory. Not a 

perfect process since the USMC should be doing the release order. The process using SMOK 

(DSS screen name) does follow the general intent that the materiel move on a release order 

• ACTION: DLA review their systemic process (believe to be a DLMS 511R /DIC 

CO_Post-Post Requisition followed by a DLMS 945A Materiel Release 

Confirmation). Ms. Denise Kurtz (DLA Distribution) acknowledged the requirement 

to confmn the process. 

• ACTION: Army (Kurt Phoel) to research why a local form 1549 is being used at 

Tobyhanna in lieu of standard transaction processing. 

g. Joint Stock Readiness Instruction - Depot Receipt of Reparable Returns under Army 

Directed Stock Readiness Procedures. Ms. Hilert expressed concern for the Army-requested 

procedure (identified during the November 2012 Stock Readiness meeting) for the receiving 

depot to automatically reclassify used reparable items to SCC F (unserviceable/repairable) and 

ignore the SCC on the shipping document. Automatic reclassification on receipt to SCC F may 

overstate unserviceable assets pending technician's review and reclassification. The current 

requirement under MILS TRAP is for the receiving depot to receipt the materiel in SCC K and 

submit a supply discrepancy report (SDR) to the owner. However, Mr. Pryor indicated that LMP 

Attachment, Page II 
does not support use of the SCC K. The Army fully supports the requested use of SCC F and so 

should document their reasoning and the proposed changes to MILS TRAP and SDR procedures. 

If this is an appropriate process, saving time and resources, perhaps it should be considered by all 

Components. Because SCC K is intended for uniform implementation across the DOD 

Components, the Army will need to justifY why LMP does not support its use. Mr. Terry Seibert 

(DLA Distribution) noted the reason DLA allowed the Army process to be included in the new 

stock readiness instruction was that it saved considerable time. Prior to this procedure, when 

materiel was receipted in SCC K and required repackaging, the depot would generate an SDR and 

100 percent of the time the Army would provide disposition instruction to place the materiel in 

SCC F, pending review by a technician. 

Ms. Hilert asked DLA Distribution about materiel they cannot identify which then results in SDRs. 

Terry Seibert noted that unidentified items are put in SCC Fusing the NSN on the documentation. 

Ms. Ellen Hilert noted the requirement for the receiving depot to conduct additional research on the 

unidentified items to identifY the correct NSN prior to recording the receipt and creating the SDR. 

• ACTION: Army would like to have an off-line meeting with DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office and DLA Distribution to address this issue in greater 

detail. Oliver Pryor will set the meeting up. Scope of meeting is to clarifY the most 

appropriate procedures and document the business rules for submission of an Army PDC. 

• ACTION: Army to verifY if they can accept SCC K for misidentified or unidentified 

materiel. 

• ACTION: Army to verifY the Stock Readiness procedure for depot SCC H 

determination for Army non-reparable customer returns where the item has been used 

and is not in its original pack. 

~/!_,__//-. ~~ ELLEN HILERT 

DOD MILSTRIP Administrator 

Approve~~~ DONALD C. PIPP 

Director 

DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office 

HEIDI DA VEREDE 

DoD MILSTRIP Alternate 

Attachment, Page 12