(4) DAASC and DOD EMALL team were to work together to review DAASC reject 

notices associated with EMALL requisitions to determine if systemic corrective action can be 

taken. EMALL reject messages are automatically transmitted to EMALL for corrective action. 

Additionally, DAASC is periodically notifying the EMALL PMO of repetitive rejects. 

 (5) The Marine Corps representative indicated that some raw data is currently 

downloaded from DAASC which may require some changes to this procedure when VLIPS is 

modified. DAASC will add new fields to the LOTS database for display into VLIPS as required by 

approved DLMS changes. 

b. DOD EMALL. Ms. Amy Byers, from the DOD EMALL Program Management Office 

(PMO) provided a status update on changes to EMALL. DISCUSSION: The changes, which are 

version 8.1 were originally scheduled to be implemented in early FY 08, but are now scheduled for the 

3rd quarter of FY 08. The modifications include: 

 (1) Customer Care Module – This is a Help Desk tool which will be used to document 

and record problems. 

 (2) Quantity Unit Pack (QUP) Warning for Advice Code 27 – This will provide the 

ability to change the quantity on a transaction when there is a problem with the requested quantity 

versus QUP. 

 (3) Pay.gov Changes for Charges over $99,999.99 – This change will prevent Pay.gov 

from processing charges over this amount in EMALL. 

 (4) Specialty Store Improvements to Support Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) – 

This is a new capability within EMALL to allow customers to set up specialty stores with items that are 

specific to their needs. This will provide an easier and faster shopping experience, allowing users to 

scroll through items of interest rather than the 31 million items currently in EMALL. 

 (5) Block all non-US Government Registrations from Using SP5200 – This change 

will block all non-US Government activities from using the EMALL DODAAC to place orders in 

EMALL. However, this change does nothing to prevent US Government customers from using the 

EMALL DODAAC. DLMSO does not concur with the use of SP5200 on DoD requisitions; customers 

must be directed to use their own authorized, assigned DODAAC when ordering from DoD sources of 

supply using EMALL. Having the EMALL DODAAC in the supplementary address field is not an 

issue, but using the DODAAC in the requisition document number is a violation of DOD 

policy/procedures. There is no way to tell who the real customer is and this leaves DOD vulnerable as 

anyone could have access to DoD inventories. Because the SP5200 looks like an actual DLA 

Government activity, these transactions by-pass required edits. Data provided by Ms. Byers revealed 

that during the past year, the EMALL DODAAC was used nearly 2,000 times by contractors, state, and 

federal government requisitioners. DLMSO’s position is that all government activities and contractors 

should have (or be able to obtain) a valid DODAAC and should use it. The EMALL DODAAC could 

be used for read-only access and to order from the commercial catalogs, but customer must not be 

allowed to requisition from DOD Sources of Supply using anything except an authorized DODAAC. 
3 

Mr. Bob Vitko, DLMSO, recommended that DAASC reject all DoD requisitions using the EMALL 

DODAAC as the requisitioner. ACTION: DLMSO will consider sponsoring such a change proposal. 

 (6) Material Receipt Acknowledgement. Ms. Byers presented a tutorial on how to 

complete the EMALL version of the Material Receipt Acknowledgement for DLA orders. The order 

may have been submitted via EMALL or any other ordering process. DICUSSION: It was decided 

during the discussion that the wording on the MRA request screen is confusing. The choices are: (1) 

No MRA action, (2) Complete, (3) Problem. The difference between (1) and (2) is unclear. Further 

discussion involved the choice of (3) Problem, since the drop down menu only listed five types of 

discrepancies: Other Discrepancy, Transportation Discrepancy, Quality Deficiency, Shortage and Nonqualifying Discrepancy. Ms. Johnson agreed to determine if more discrepancy types are identified under 

MILSTRAP MRA procedures. Subsequent to the meeting, the following MILSTRAP-authroized codes 

were identified: 

 

CODE DEFINITION 

A SDR being submitted (Excludes shortage and partial or total nonreceipt) 

B No record of requisition (Use in reply to DI Code DRB Follow-up if there is no 

 record of the requisition and the material has not been received.) 

C Reserved for future DOD assignment 

D Transportation discrepancy report being submitted. (Excludes shortage and partial or 

 total nonreceipt.) 

E Product quality deficiency report being submitted. 

F Shortage or partial or total nonreceipt. Quantity not received entered in record 

 positions 25-29. 

G-W Reserved for future DOD assignment 

X Discrepant receipt, other than shortage and partial or total nonreceipt, which does not 

 meet qualifying criteria for discrepancy report submission. 

Y-Z Reserved for future DOD assignment. 

EMALL uses all the codes, except B (no record of the requisition). Recommend the definition used in 

EMALL mirror those in the DOD MILSTRAP Manual. While Code “B” would not apply to 

requisitions initiated in EMALL, they could apply to those received via on-line feeds from EBS. During 

addition discussion, it was determined that these MRA requests only go to the “orderer,” who may not 

be the actual customer/ship-to. The technique used by the “orderer” to contact the actual customer is 

unclear. The Committee requested that EMALL procedures be documented in MILSTRAP/DLMS 

Manuals. In addition, Ms. Johnson requested EMALL use the 527R vice the 861, which is not a DOD 

recognized use for the MRA. This change would require systems changes in EMALL and would require 

coordination with EBS and the Business Transformation Agency (BTA). ACTION: EMALL PMO is 

to document the EMALL MRA procedures and forward to DLMSO as a PDC for staffing and inclusion 

in the MILSTRAP/DLMS Manuals. Also, provide a list of all document identifier codes which may be 

input via EMALL. 

 (7) FMS EMALL PILOT. Ms. Linda Kimberlin, DLA J-3, provided a briefing which 

described an initiative the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) community is undertaking to allow FMS 

customers to use EMALL. DISCUSSION: Currently no foreign customers use EMALL for ordering; 

however there are 6-8 that use it to obtain status on their requisitions. Ms. Kimberlin explained that the 
4 

proposed concept to allow FMS customers to use EMALL is still in draft and should be finalized at an 

FMS meeting in November 2007. At that time Ms. Kimberlin will document the procedures in a 

proposed DLMS change. 

 (8) Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). Ms. Linda Kimberlin outlined the policy 

addressed in Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Policy Memo 06-4 which appears to 

authorize DOD support for direct commercial sales (i.e., sale to a U.S. commercial entity in support of 

an FMS customer where there is no contract with the U.S Government). However, after review of 

sections 30, 38 and 39 of the Army Export Control Act, it was verified that there is no exception allowed 

for such a sale to contractors under contract to the FMS country. A DOD sale to a U.S. company may 

occur only when the company has a contract with the U.S. Government. System changes in support of 

DCS will not be pursued. 

c. Monitoring for Requisition Priority Abuse 

 (1) Draft PDC 280, GSA Priority Abuse Downgrade and Report Procedures. 

BACKGROUND: During the last Supply PRC in May 2007, Mr. Garvey, GSA, agreed to develop a 

proposed DLMS change to bring GSA in line with Services/Agencies with regard to downgrading and 

reporting priority abuses on requisitions. This draft PDC documents GSA’s proposal which will require 

access to the Joint Staff (JS) approved list of DODAACs qualifying for FAD I use. DISCUSSION: 

The complexities of this were discussed, not the least of which is the classified nature of the basic 

information associating the name of the activity and it’s location with the F/AD I authorization. The 

current PDC suggest that DAASC provide a list of DoDAACs to GSA via a secure file transfer process. 

No Joint Staff representation was present during the discussion; however, it was agreed that the process 

would be better if the JS provided direct update to both DAASC and GSA concurrently. Ms. Hilert 

requested that DAASC assist in determining the best technique to use to communicate to DAASC that 

GSA downgraded the priority on a given requisition and how to include that particular requisition in the 

DAASC Logistics Reports database. Since GSA already provides to DAASC the CHA/CH1 

transactions for each order which bypasses DAASC, it was suggested that a way to identify which of 

these orders have been downgraded be considered. Multiple techniques were discussed. ACTION: 

Ms. Hilert requested that DAASC provide their recommendation for reworking the PDC. 

 (2) Force Activity Designator (FAD) Validation for EMALL Customers. 

BACKGROUND: Current DOD policy regarding Priority Designator (PD) 01 use for DODAACs 

which are not authorized for FAD I use, is to post these requisition to the DAASC Logistics Reports 

database by Service, but not to downgrade the requisition, except for Coast Guard or FMS. No prevalidation occurs in EMALL. DISCUSSION: DLMSO proposed the following business rules 

regarding “non-standard” ordering; e.g., EMALL, GSA Advantage, or GSA Global Supply: 

 PD 01 orders using non-standard requisitioning methods must have an authorized valid FAD 

I DODAAC in either record position (rp) 30-35 or 45-50. If not DAASC and/or GSA will downgrade. 

 If the EMALL DODAAC (SP5200) appears as the requisitioner (rp 30-35) in the PD 01 

requisition, DAASC and/or GSA should automatically downgrade. (If the recommendation discussed 

above to have DAASC and/or GSA reject all orders with SP5200 as the requisitioner is adopted, then 

this edit becomes unnecessary.) 
5 

 As an alternative to automatic downgrading, EMALL could challenge use of PD 01, PD 04, 

or PD 11. A “pop up” box might ask “In accordance with DOD policy, are you authorized to use a 

priority which is reserved for F/AD I activities only?” 

ACTION: PRC members are to provide preliminary feedback within 15 days from distribution of 

these minutes on whether this practice would negatively impact EMALL capability to support critical 

ordering practices. Based upon feedback DLMSO will decide whether to proceed with developing a 

DLMS change proposal for automatic downgrading. The EMALL PMO is to provide feedback on the 

feasibility of adding the pop-up challenge (as a DoD requirement without funding support from 

DLMSO). 

 d. Military Assistance Program Address Directory (MAPAD) Re-engineering Initiative. 

Mr. Bob Hammond, DLMSO, discussed changes planned for the MAPAD. These changes, funded by 

BTA, are intended to mirror the technique currently used for updating the DODAAD. Today, a change 

to the MAPAD (whether a country, a freight forwarder, or an International Logistics Control Office 

(ILCO)) requires contact with DAASC to request the change. There is no automated process and no 

DAASC edits on the change. This re-engineering proposal includes development of input screens to be 

used only by the ILCO. It requires DAASC edits on many of the entries, e.g., State, and it adds points 

of contact information (organization, phone number, FAX number). The updates will be disseminated 

using a replicated data base to insure everything is synchronized. The draft functional requirements 

document is currently out for comment. The design review is planned for November 2007. System 

development and testing with the Central Service Points and Distribution Standard System (DSS) is 

expected to be completed in June 2008. Initial operating capability with DSS is scheduled for July 

2008. 

 e. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) and Standard Transactions – Phase I. Ms Kim Pisall, 

BTA, provided a briefing on the rationale and policy for standard transaction processing and compliance 

requirements for WAWF She described the steps necessary for proper implementation of standard 

transactions. DISCUSSION: Ms. Pisall outlined the benefits of standard WAWF transactions as 

follows: 

 Enables systems requiring a WAWF interface to come on-line outside of a WAWF 

release by working with the Global Exchange (GEX) to determine mapping needs. 

 Functionality is build once and any new system requiring WAWF data can utilize 

existing data sets to “plug and play”. 

 Provides DOD the ability for enterprise level decision making through aggregation of 

acceptance data. 

 Interim environment has the ability to post accounts payable in accordance with 

GAAP until the full capability is available in the target ERP environment. 

Ms. Pisall also discussed the tasks required for WAWF implementation to include determining data 

format. During this discussion, she indicated that systems that are able to receive DLMS X12 data sets 
6 

will be able to implement the WAWF interface with a minimum of time and no cost to the interface 

partner. For those systems that that can’t send or receive X12, GEX mediation will be required and a 

cost to interface will be incurred and will require at least 90 days for implementation. Ms. Pisall also 

indicated that new systems may be able to receive and send data via the DLMS compliant ebXML 

schemas. In this case, no system specific mapping will be needed. GEX will exchange data directly 

with the external system using compliant XML schema transactions. 

 (1) Mr. Tommy Lyons, DLMSO, stated that DLMSO has not approved any ebXML 

schemas; furthermore DLMSO provided comments to WAWF. The comments that DLMSO provided 

stated that the schemas provided by WAWF did not follow ebXML naming and design rules, were not 

based on UN/CEFACT Core Components and were not correctly mapped to DLMS Data Elements. 

WAWF stated that it has already implemented the changes and that they would provide a copy of the 

resultant schemas and mapping to DLMS Data Elements (the WAWF POC is Geoffrey Ames). Ms. 

Hilert will look providing access to WAWF manuals/implementation guides via the DLMSO web site. 

A question was asked regarding the costs for non DOD activities interfacing with WAWF. Ms. Pisall 

indicated there could be a DISA usage fee for those activities. Ms. Beverly Simons is the Program 

Manager at BTA and may be contacted for more information. Ms. Pisall also presented the WAWF 

Implementation Plan which listed the planned WAWF implementations. There were several questions 

regarding the activities listed and she indicated she would provide an updated version with more current 

information. 

 (2) Mr. Virostko, DLA, initiated a discussion regarding the Air Force wanting to use the 

Material Receipt Acknowledge (MRA) (527R) as an acceptance document. Ms. Hilert and Ms. Johnson 

explained that the MRA does not meet the requirements of acceptance as defined by the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System (DFARS). The MRA merely acknowledges receipt to the source of 

supply and may include indication of a discrepancy, but it is understood to be systemically triggered by 

the receipt process, and, therefore, may not be associated with true acceptance by a Government person. 

The receipt acknowledgement represents physical custody and is not recognized as an acceptance report. 

She also said that a transition to using the MRA as acceptance would require a DLMS change. 

Mr. Virostko indicated he would take the lead on further discussions on this issue. ACTION: BTA is 

to provide an updated WAWF Implementation Plan and a definition of acceptance versus acceptance 

notification. 

f. DLA Receipting Way Ahead Integrated Process Team (IPT). Mr. Don Virostko, DLA, 

briefed on the IPT tasked by DLA HQ to analyze receipt related processes and recommend short and 

long term solutions for obtaining timely receipt/acceptance as prerequisite for vendor payment and 

interfund billing. The members of the team are from DLA HQs, the DDC, DLMSO, DORRA and 

representatives from all the DLA ICPs. Some of the issues/concerns that the team is working on 

include: lack of timely destination acceptance/receipt acknowledgment resulting in late payment and 

interest penalties; lack of timely receipt acknowledgement on shipments accepted at origin; delays in 

customer billing for reimbursement on vendor-filled requirements; and lack of implementation of 

WAWF within the Services pending deployment under ERP/modernization. Variations in WAWF 

implementation by Services requires coordination with the ship-to to assure a destination acceptor will 

be available. The IPT reported that 10% of the customer direct shipments do not have MRAs. There 

are multiple causes and contributing factors to include the lack of standard processes for notifying 

receipt /acceptance where material is obtained through non-standard ordering methods (e.g., DoD 
7 

EMALL and DLA Prime Vendor). Some MRAs are not posting in EBS due to EBS error processing 

and some MRAs are being directed to the shipper vice the source of supply. ACTION: The IPT will 

develop a proposed DLMS change to document DOD procedures for reporting receipt/acceptance of 

material obtained through non-standard ordering processes and explore the feasibility of incorporating 

Services receipt/acceptance reporting in Performance Based Agreements (PBA). In addition, they will 

continue to identify customers that are not providing MRAs and work together to resolve the issues. 

g. Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA). 

 (1) Preliminary question/findings from DAAS draft MRA query report review. 

BACKGROUND: DLMSO has reinvigorated review of the draft MRA report with a goal toward 

identifying any needed changes and/or improvements and finalizing the report for SPRC use. 

DISCUSSION: Mr. Bob Vitko and Ms. Brenda Meadow, DLMSO, are conducting an in-depth review 

of the report and presented preliminary findings to the committee. They recommend: 

 General restructuring of the Summary Report and the inclusion of dollar value data. 

 Collection and display of data under the Service of the ship-to DODAAC not the Service 

of the requisitioning DODAAC, with the exception that when a DSS depot is the ship-to DODAAC the 

data would be collected under the Service of the requisitioning DODAAC. 

 The “No MRA” Report for DVDs and Stock Shipments is incorrect, recommend two 

separate reports, general report restructuring and the inclusion of dollar value data. 

 Provide an ad hoc query capability; delete Special Reports and MRA by Discrepancy 

Indicator Report in favor of using ad hoc query. 

 DODAAC validation be performed prior to a DoDAAC being identified in the report as a 

ship-to DODAAC. The draft report identifies 'Y' series supplementary data and other invalid entries as 

ship-to DODAACs 

 A review of the technique used to identify CONUS versus OCONUS orders be 

undertaken by DAAS. The draft report contained CONUS ship-to and requisitioner DODAACs in the 

OCONUS portion of the report. Having an accurate manner to identify this is relevant to both data 

display and data collection as the timeframes allowed for MRA submission are different for CONUS 

and OCONUS activities. 

Ms. Johnson indicated she agreed with the recommendations and asked the SPRC to review the 

recommendations and provide their concurrence, or non-concurrence with comments and suggestions, 

prior to the requirements being provided to DAASC. ACTION: All Components provide 

concurrence/comments on the MRA Report recommendation within 30 days from the date of these 

minutes.

 (2) Navy SPRC 07-01 ACTION. BACKGROUND: The Navy was requested to 

provide by July 31, 2007 a list of legacy systems that have implemented the MRA process as well as 

those that should be generating MRAs, but do not. This was originally a tasking from Ms. Deb Bennett, 

DUSD(L&MR)SCI at the SPRC Meeting 05-01. DISCUSSION: Mr. Michael Morra, Navy SPRC 

representative, indicated that he was unable to provide a list of the systems because the Naval Supply 

Systems Command (NAVSUP) Central Design Agency (CDA) is only responsible for part of the Navy 

systems. Ms. Hilert indicated that as the Navy SPRC representative he was obligated to provide an 

overall Navy answer. ACTION: Navy to provide requested information. DLMSO will look into 

having SCI follow-up formally to the Navy if Mr. Morra is unable to provide a response within 30 days 

from the date of these minutes. 
8 

 (3) Pseudo Receipt SDRs. BACKGROUND: This issue, first reported in 1999 and 

discussed at several SPRC meetings, is related to the Army implementation of the MRA which included 

automatic generation of SDRs for non-receipt or shortage (based on MRA with discrepancy code F). 

The Army system fails to recognize a partial shipment (indicated by the 16th position of the TCN) and 

identifies a shortage and systemically generates the SDR. Many of these SDRs are prepared while 

shipment is intransit or without knowing the material has been received after the SDR was generated. 

These pseudo receipt SDRs may then be submitted by hard-copy without research. These SDRs result 

in significant unnecessary workload for the action activity. The Army agreed during the SPRC Meeting 

in May 2002 that SDRs triggered by pseudo receipts would be verified by the submitting activity and 

those believed to be valid would be annotated as “Verified as true SDR (ROD).” DLA ICPs, the DDC 

and GSA were to look for trends by originating activity and notify the Army so corrective action can be 

taken by the Army to ensure the proper research is accomplished prior to submission. Discussion: The 

Army recently informed DLMSO that there is no longer a Pseudo Receipt SDR problem. However, 

GSA reports that they continue to receive a high volume of unverified SDRs related to partial shipments. 

DLA reported that they are getting a small number. Ms. Hilert reiterated that these SDRs are not 

considered valid and will not be worked unless they are verified by the submitting activity. ACTION: 

DLMSO to research specific SDR examples and provide feedback to the Army. DLA/GSA to report 

trends as identified. 

h. DLMS Related Passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Implementation Status 

 (1) USMC Pilot. Mr. Donald Cooper, USMC AIT, briefed the committee on the Marine 

Corps pilot project to implement passive RFID. The Marine Corps pilot uses the DLMS Bridge 

(middleware) to receive and translate Advanced Shipping Notifications (ASNs). The DLMS Bridge has 

been incorporated into the EasyRFID (RFID edgeware) software and Alien RFID technology solution to 

communicate passive RFID visibility data from Camp Lejeune to DAASC. OSD had suggested using a 

commercial product such as GlobeRanger which performs most middleware and edgeware functions, 

but without the DLMS transaction capability. A combination of DLMS transactions (856S and 856A) 

and RFID tag data is used for the USMC pilot to create the Optical Memory Card (OMC) file format 

needed at Lejeune. This solution provides the needed data from the DLMS transactions in a format that 

eliminates the requirement to alter the Automated Manifest System – Tactical (AMS-TAC) system. The 

Visibility Transaction from ADC 219 will be used for the II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) 

implementation. The plan is to use a phased approach; in Phase I the DLMS Bridge will pass the 

Visibility Transactions to DAASC after reading tagged shipments from the dedicated truck deliveries. 

Phase II will incorporate ASN data with transportation data that the DLMS Bridge will translate for use 

with AMS-TAC. The Marine Corps selected Northrup Grumman to develop and implement future 

enterprise solutions (currently considering Globe Ranger) for passive RFID technology for the I and II 

MEF. The Marine Corps is currently evaluating how to proceed with the implementation at Camp 

Lejeune -- go with the available value-added DLMS Bridge and EasyRFID solution or implement 

another enterprise solution selected by MARCORSYSCOM. 

 (2) DLMS Bridge. BACKGROUND: Mr. John Schwartz, DLMSO, provided a 

briefing on the DLMS Bridge. The DLMS Bridge addresses the problem of how new business systems 

using DLMS data enhancements (such as Passive RFID) can exchange data with legacy systems. The 

Bridge allows transaction data to flow between incompatible DOD systems by “translating” the data for 
9 

use between these systems without significant effort or cost. It handles Passive RFID registration and 

visibility transactions, supports DLMS transactions such as the 856S and 856A. It also connects 

Passive RFID tag reads and legacy systems such as AMS-TAC, Cargo Movement Operation System and 

Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS). In addition, it will accommodate user output 

requirements other than DLMS or MILS (e.g.., flat files data sets, user defined files, XML OMC files 

etc.). It is simple, flexible architecture with central configuration management. The bridge supports a 

variety of functional areas including supply finance, transportation, and provides support at no 

additional expense (no programming costs, transactions mapping costs or help desk costs) and is 

available for tailoring for specific system integrations. The DLMS Bridge can support non-RFID 

DLMS transactions and so could also be of benefit to legacy systems that are trying to become DLMS 

compliant. ACTION: DAASC to provide a briefing on the RFID (R)-Table, which is where the 

passive RFID-related information is stored at DAASC. 

 (4) DRAFT ADC 257, DLMS Shipment Status Generated by the Consolidation and 

Containerization Point (CCP) (Staffed as PDC 275). BACKGROUND: This change documents the 

preparation of the DLMS Shipment Status by the CCP using the Distribution Standard System (DSS) in 

order to provide passive RFID information when not previously provided by the shipping depot. It also 

provides for a revision of the transaction format to clearly define this usage and distinguish it from 

shipment status transactions provided by the DSS on behalf of the shipping depot. DISCUSSION: Mr. 

Gene Bransfield and Mr. Larry Loiacono, DLA, provided a briefing on the 856S that will be prepared by 

the CCP during which it became clear that the documentation supporting the change was sufficient for 

the complexity of the business rules involved. Further clarification was requested. SUBSEQUENT to 

the meeting a phonecon has held with DLMSO, DAASC, and DLA during which procedures were 

explained in detail. Ms. Hilert updated the change to reflect agreements made during that call and the 

draft version of the approved change was provided for Component review. The change now clarifies 

that the DLMS Shipment Status (856S) provided by the CCP will provide passive RFID information to 

the customer resulting from reconfiguration of the original shipment by the CCP, when the original 

shipper didn’t provide passive RFID, or the original tag was not readable.. The CCP shipment status 

may reflect multiple levels of pack associated with the lead TCN. It may also update the shipment date 

or mode of shipment while providing visibility of additional passive RFID tag values associated with the 

original shipment as a result of reconfiguration. The CCP shipment status should not be used to overlay 

the original shipment status in the receiving application, as this may result in some loss of data content. 

A new Status Reason Code will be added to the 856S to distinguish it from shipment status transaction 

generated by DSS on behalf of the SOS. This distinguishing code will be used by DAASC to prevent 

conversion to MILSTRIP AS_ formats which drops the additional TCN and RFID content, but could 

easily cause confusion in the MILS environment. The new code allows DLMS receiving activities to 

properly identify and process the transaction. There was also agreement for DSS to specifically identify 

the ship-to DoDAAC as a DLMS enhancement. DAASC will modify their rules to route the CCP 

shipment status only to the ship-to, and not other status recipients. ACTION: Components to provide 

feedback per staffing of the draft ADC. 

i. Jump Start Update. BACKGROUND: The DLMS migration Jump Start Program is a BTA 

tool to motivate and assist Components to migrate to DLMS by providing “seed” money, program 

management and enterprise support. There are currently four systems that received Jump Start funding in 

2007: The Army Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) which has completed two releases in 2007 and 

will be 100% DLMS compliant by the end of 2008; Navy R-Supply, which is migrating 2 transactions, the 
10 

856S and the 856A, but will also implement all the DLMS enhancements that go with those transactions; 

Air Force ILS/SBSS, which will be implementing most all of the DLMSO transaction; and Marine Corps 

MAISTER, which will implement all the DLMS transactions. DISCUSSION: Mr. Dale Yeakel, DLMSO, 

provided an update on the DLMS Jump Start initiative. He explained there is a one page nomination form 

available on the DLMSO web site: http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/DLMS/jumpstart.asp. A 

question was asked about those systems that received funding in 2007 requesting additional funding in 

2008. Mr. Yeakel indicated requesting additional funding was appropriate. The key milestones for FY 

2008 are: September 10th – BTA solicitation of 2008 system funding nomination announcement; November 

2nd – Component nomination due back to BTA; December 4th BTA review and selection of nominated 

systems; February 3rd – BTA transfer of funds to selected system program offices. 

j. Jump Start Overview of USAF. Mr. Pete Talamonti, Air Force, briefed the group on the 

initiative to migrate the Integrated Logistics System-Supply (ILS-S) Program into a DLMS 

environment. ILS-S is the standard base level inventory accounting and ordering management system 

for the Air Force. Approximately 82 MILs (which represents most of those used by the system) 

transactions will be converted to DLMS by Feb/Mar 2008. Mr. Talamonti indicated that they were 

developing software to control conversion to DLMS by transaction and destination system. Mr. 

Strickler, DAASC, said that they didn’t need to be concerned with where the transactions were going, as 

DAASC keeps track of systems that are DLMS compliant or still using MILs and translates 

appropriately. Mr. Talamonti indicated they would re-look at that requirement and determine if it was 

still needed. 

 (1) DLMS Changes Support Air Force DLMS Migration 

 (a) Air Force Draft PDC 278, Inclusion of Unit Price in Requisition 

Modification. This proposed change will add the price to the requisition modifier transaction 

(AM_/ 511M). Although not used by other Components, the information is required to be 

transmitted ILS/SBSS to the SoS. Ms. Hilert asked if the Air Force could update the PDC to 

better explain procedures for the use of the unit price (for possible identification of an 

“authorized DLMS enhancement) or if the changed should only be identified for intra-AF use. If 

the data could be used by other Components as an enhancement, the impact should be discussed 

in the PDC. 

 (b) Air Force Draft PDC Excess Cause Code. This proposed change 

will add an Excess Cause Code on all Requisition Cancellation Requests (AC1/869C). This is 

used by ILS/SBSS and correlates to the reason the requisition is being cancelled. Mr. Bob Vitko 

agreed this may be useful to DLA in determining if the demand should be cancelled. The Air 

Force will update and consider definitions that could be used on a DOD-wide basis and submit 

officially. 

 (c) Air Force Draft PDC Technical Order (TO) Number. This 

proposed change is to add the TO number to requisitions (A02/A0B/511R). The TO number 

relates to the part number of the item being requisitioned and is currently carried in rp 67-80 of 

the MILS transaction produced by ILS/SBSS which is not compatible with the standard MILS 

format. There was some discussion of the field size required and the Air Force will clarify when 

the change is submitted officially. 
11 

 (d) Air Force Draft PDC Lateral Requisitions. This proposed change 

will add the From RIC and the SOS RIC to requisitions (511R) that are flowing between Air 

Force bases. This change will be for intra-Air Force only use. 

k. Jump Start Overview for USA Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). Mr. 

Kurt Phoel discussed the LMP migration to DLMSO. LMP has completed two releases in 2007 

of various migrated DLMS transactions and will be 100% DLMS compliant with the third 

release by the end of 2008. Ms. Hilert requested that the Army provide slides indicating which 

transactions are in the various increments. Mr. Phoel also indicated that Army unique 

transactions would be migrated after 2008. Ms. Hilert asked for status of RFID/UID under 

DLMS and Mr. Phoel said that technology would be implemented at a later date. ACTION: 

Army to provide list indicating which transactions are in the various increments. 

 (1) DLMS Changes Supporting Army DLMS Migration 

 (a) Army Draft PDC 269, DLMS and DLSS Changes to Support 

Army Exchange Processing. This proposed change will implement Exchange Pricing (EP) 

which is a business process improvement mandated by the OSD Comptroller to mitigate the 

financial problems the Army has experienced with granting excess credit through it’s current 

supply practices. It allows credit for reparable items to provide incentive for organizations to 

turn-in unserviceable component parts that the Army Materiel Command repairs and returns to 

inventory to support unit readiness needs. In order to rectify this situation, the Army will convert 

to a dual pricing system. All Army managed items will have a standard price, which represents 

the acquisition cost plus a recovery rate. In addition, items that are on an existing or planned 

national repair program will also have an exchange price which represents the loaded repair cost 

plus a recovery rate. Those nationally repaired items will be issued at a discounted price based 

on an expected return. If the exchange price items are not returned with the established 

timeframe, a Delta Bill will be sent to the customer that will result in a net cost of the full 

standard price to the customer. The exchange price DLMS change will only be applicable to 

Army customers. All others will be charged the standard price. Ms Hilert is working some code 

issues with the Army. The PDC is close to being finalized. 

 (b) ADC 254, DLMS Mapping for Army Material Release Order 

Shipment Status, DI Code B99, and Administrative Updates for DLMS Mapping of the 

Unique Item Identification (UII). This approved change incorporates the inclusion of the 

Army unique DIC B99, Offline Material Release Order (MRO) Image, from the MILS to DLMS 

mapping maintained by DAASC. All data elements, with the exception of the DIC are identical 

to the already mapped MILS A5 transaction. Normally this transaction is systemically generated 

when the supply source requisition processing record reflects that an off-line exception data 

MRO has been sent to the storage site. The DIC B99 is a mirror image of the off-line MRO less 

the exception data. 

 (c) Army Draft PDC 273, Revise DLMS and MILSTRAP to Support 

Intra-Army Logistics Reassignment (LR) Data, DS 846D and 846S. Within the Army, in 

addition to the Primary Inventory Control Activity (PICA) and the Secondary Inventory Control 
12 

Activity (SICA), there are activities classified as an Army Class Management Activity (ACMA) 

which is the Army designated class managers of items assigned to DLA or GSA for integrated 

materiel management. The ACMA or SICA is authorized to stock materials based on usage, but 

is not the item manager. When a Army activity (PICA) is the Losing Item Manager (LIM) to 

another Army PICA, some assets are first transferred to the Army SICA to cover open 

requirements, second to the LIM retention quantity and last to the Gaining Item Manager (GIM). 

Ms. Johnson indicated this change was intra-Army, but may be useful to other Components. Ms. 

Johnson also pointed out that there are several administrative changes in the PDC to provide 

clarification and consistency. She also said there are questions on the draft PDC that must be 

answered prior to formal staffing of the change. Specifically DLA is requested to determine 

what action the depot is currently taking for the requirement quantity the Army enters in the 

DZC, RP 51-55. Mr. Vitko asked the Army whether the assets that are currently in DSS depots 

owned by the SICA or the LIM. The Army is also requested to verify if project code is wanted 

at LQ in position 270 rather than position 376. ACTION: Army to verify whether assets are 

actually being changed from a LIM RI Code to a different SICA RI Code by this process; and 

DLA provide answers to the above questions regarding current process for the Army’s third 

party (SICA) quantity. This is an Army-DLA change, however all Components are requested to 

determine during staffing, whether the change could benefit their modernized systems. 

SUBSEQUENT to the meeting the PDC was issued on October 25, 2007 for staffing with the 

Components. 

 (d) Army Draft PDC 261, Migrate Navy Serial Number and Lot 

Number Transactions (NAVSUP P-724 BG1/BG2) to DLMS 527R Receipt, 867I Issue and 

947I Inventory Adjustment (Joint Army-Navy requirement). Army has identified a 

requirement for using Navy DI Code BG1/BG2 transaction data in DLMS receipt, issue and 

inventory adjustment transactions to support an existing interface between Army and the Naval 

Operational Logistics Support Center (NOLSC) Ordnance Information Systems (OIS). This 

change will allow Army to support the existing interface when LMP implements DLMS. Ms. 

Johnson indicated this PDC will be out for staffing soon and will impact the Army, Navy, and 

DAASC.

 (e) PDC 271, DLMS Mapping for Army Electronic Project Support 

(AEPS) Requisition Exception Data. This proposed change accommodates the LMP 

requirement for receiving requisition exception data from the AEPS system. The change 

modifies the DLMS 511R (requisition) to transmit the data content of the AEPS generated 

requisition exception data and format. Inclusion of these data elements supports DLMS 

conversion for Army and AEPS unique data elements to the existing DLMS transaction. Ms. 

Hilert indicated that the ADC is on hold pending reconsideration of Army requested mapping 

which DLMSO requested. ACTION: Army to determine if LMP mapping of AEPS exception 

data can fall within exception data as already mapped for the DLA/DAASC/EMALL. 

 (f) Army Other. Additional DLMS changes supporting Army DLMS 

Migration were briefly discussed. These have not yet been formally submitted by the Army, but 

are under development: excess quantity business rules when over 5 positions (e.g. for 

ammunition); 3rd party billing; pseudo receipt; and decapitalization between funding types for 

repairables. 

 
13 

l. Approved MILSTRAP Change Letter (AMCL) 15, New Ownership Code 0 (Zero) to Identify 

Special Operation Forces (SOF) Ownership. BACKGROUND: This approved change, which had an 

implementation date of December 2004, added a new Ownership Code to identify assets owned by DOD 

Special Operations Forces. The Army had previously reported that they had not implemented the 

change. DISCUSSION: Mr. Dan Collins, Navy, outlined a problem with material owned by the Navy 

Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM) being intermingled with assets belonging to the 

Army, regular Navy, and other Services being stored at Army sites. This inability to readily identify 

and provide SOF assets in a timely manner poses a threat to NAVSPECWARCOM readiness and affects 

the ability to respond to fleet requirements. There was some discussion regarding whether the Army had 

implemented this change and it was reported that, although it had been implemented in the Commodity 

Command Standard System (CCSS), it was not being used. The Army also reported that it had not been 

implemented in the Army Standard Depot System (SDS). However, it appeared from the discussion that 

Army considered visibility of SOF materiel to be available in SDS though non-standard implementation 

of ownership codes which are intended for other purposes. Ms. Johnson requested that the Army 

provide a formal response as to which Army systems have implemented AMCL 15. She also asked 

them to document current procedures on how this type of material is stored and issued and how it will be 

handled when LMP is implemented. ACTION: Army to provide official status of the implementation 

of AMCL 15 and document current and future procedures to store and issue Ownership Code 0 material. 

Request Army provide the information within 30 days of the date of these minutes. 

m. Additional DLMS Changes recently approved, in staffing, or under development or old 

Requests for Implementation Dates needing a fresh look. 

 (1) Request for Implementation Date of ADC 38, Special Program Requirements 

(SPR) Process Minimum and Maximum Quantity Checks and New SPR Status. 

BACKGROUND: This approved change allows ICPs to determine the forecasted requirements 

acceptability in terms of the risk of long supply being generated. This measurement requires 

consideration of the size of the forecasted quantity in relation to the normal demand estimated for the 

items being forecasted, the value (cost) of this quantity, the supply status of the items being forecasted, 

funding capability of the IC,P accuracy of past forecasts and the degree of assurance that requisitions 

will follow. ICPs may perform a minimum quantity check and reject SPR requested, using SPR status 

Code PG when the required quantity is so low that the IMM can support the requirement from its current 

stockage level without an SPR document. DISCUSSION: DLMSO originally released a Request for 

Implementation Date in August of 2000. However, only the Navy and GSA responded. DLA asked, in 

2006, that the request for implementation date be reissued and provided their implementation as CY 

2007 for EBS. This requirement was originated by DLA in 2000, and Mr. Steve St. John, DLA, 

indicated he would review ADC 38 to verify that it is still valid. ACTION: DLA advise if ADC 

requirement is still valid. If DLA determines the requirement is valid, Ms. Johnson will ask the Services 

to provided updated implementation date information.

(2) Request for Implementation Date for ADC 39, Special Program Requirements 

(SPR) Process Use of Reject Status Codes and Review of Alternative if not being 

Implemented in Legacy Systems. BACKGROUND: Currently, upon receiving SPR 

transactions with DI DY_, DLA processes the transaction and generates replies using either DI 

Code DYK, SPR Status transaction or DI Code DZG Transaction Reject. While DOD 

Components legacy systems can electronically process DYK transactions, DLA understanding 

for the SPR process is that the DZG transactions are printed and distributed hard copy for manual 
14 

processing. Problems occur when DZG Rejects for SPR transactions are not processed or not 

processed in a timely manner. It may not be practical for the Components to change their SPR 

legacy system to automate the DZG process, accordingly this change, originated by DLA, 

provides for reject advice codes on a DYK in response to a DYJ follow-up. A request for 

implementation date was released for this approved change in August 2000. The only response 

received was from the Navy indicating that implementation was held in abeyance until their ERP 

replaced their legacy systems. In 2006, DLA advised that they had implemented the approved 

change in their legacy system and provided an estimated implementation date for EBS of 2007. 

In May of 2006, DLMSO requested that if Components will not implement this change in their 

legacy systems that the alternative identified in the change be evaluated for implementation in 

ERPs and ADC 39 withdrawn. The alternative would use the DLMS 824R Reject Advice 

transaction in lieu of the DZG rejects. DISCUSSION: Ms. Johnson indicated that since she had 

no implementation dates for Service legacy systems, she was proposing ADC 39 be withdrawn. 

ACTION: Ms. Johnson will develop a memorandum for withdrawal of ADC 39. 

 

 (3) PDC 255, IUID and RFID in Shipment Status Material Returns.

BACKGROUND: This proposed change updates the DLMS 856R, Shipment Status Material Returns 

to carry IUID information and passive RFID tag information. The PDC is a planning tool for 

establishing techniques for accommodating IUID and RFID tag data within transactional exchanges 

under the DLMS to support business process improvements. The change also adds administrative notes 

to clarify usage and further identify specific DLMS enhancements. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert said she 

had only received comments from DLA and that since this change has implications for the Jump Start 

Program she will move forward with an approved change. ACTION: All Components provide 

comments/concurrence with 15 days of the meeting. Pending receipt of comments, DLMSO will 

publish the ADC. 

 (4) PDC 264 Revise DS 867I and MILSTRAP Issue Transactions to Support Navy 

Requirements for Reason for Reversal Code (Draft ADC 259). BACKGROUND: This proposed 

change affects Navy and DLA only and adds a “Reason for Reversal Code” to the 867I (D7_ Issue 

Transaction). DISCUSSION: Ms. Johnson indicated that this PDC will become an ADC however she 

has some concerns over the Navy use of issue reversal code “R” which is used when material returned 

by the customer to the distribution depot on the original document number due to a discrepancy in the 

item received such as the condition or a shortage, etc. Her concern is that the use of the R issue reversal 

code may circumvent the intent of the Supply Discrepancy Report process. Consequently, the change 

will document the concerns and be approved for use in existing Navy legacy system interface with DLA 

DSS so that DLA DSS can implement DS 867I Issue transaction without breaking the existing Navy 

interface, but not for future use with Navy ERP. Ms. Hilert indicated that she was recently advised the 

Air Force would like to implement a similar process. DLMSO does not support this process for use 

with discrepant materiel, which is currently under review by the DDC. ACTION: The ADC will be 

provided with a caveat for limited use of 867I Reversal Code R by Navy, and only for the existing Navy 

legacy system interface. Code R will not be authorized for use in modernized systems. 

 (5) Draft ADC 258, DLMS Enhancement – Addition of Project Code field to 

Disposal Release Order (DRO) (Staffed as PDC 223). BACKGROUND: This draft approved 

change is a DLMS enhancement to include the Project Code on the 940R (Disposal Release Document). 

DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert would like the PRC representatives to concur with this ADC as an 
15 

authorized DLMS enhancement. The ADC has minor changes from the PDC version, but should be 

reviewed by the committee members. It is understood that this could become a conversion issue, but it 

makes sense to add the Project Code to the DRO as it is only missing from the current A5J due to a 

limited MILS record positions. The qualifier is already on the DLMS 940R (for use in other types of 

material release orders). ACTION: Pending receipt of Component comment within 15 days of the 

meeting, DLMSO will plan to publish the ADC. 

 (6) PDC 274, Establishment of Borrowed Codes for DLMS Unit of Material Measure 

(Unit of Issue/Purchase Unit) Conversion Guide. BACKGROUND: This proposed change would 

revise the DLMS Unit of Material Measure Conversion Guide to include new borrowed/substitute codes 

to provide DOD equivalent codes for conversion processing at American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) ASC X12 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) version 4010 or higher, up to the version at which 

the correct X12 code becomes available. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert indicated she has received limited 

comments from the Components and would like feed-back as this has Jump Start implications. 

ACTION: All Components provide comments/concurrence by 15 days from the date of these minutes.

 (7) PDC 277, Deleted DODAAC Cited on Open Orders. BACKGROUND: This 

proposed change will require supply sources to automatically initiate cancellation action for unfilled 

quantities of materiel obligations or open requisitions upon deletion of a DODAAC identified as 

requisitioner, ship-to or bill-to activity from the DODAAD. Applicable supply and shipment status will 

be furnished to authorized recipients and in the event DAAS does not have a recorded DODAAC, the 

status will be disposed of. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert indicated this change had been signed out for 

staffing. ACTION: Comments are due to DLMSO by November 26, 2007. 

 (8) PDC 279, Administrative Update to Address Field Size Restriction for 

Transportation Related Data Elements. This change was not discussed and Ms. Hilert indicated it 

she is working with USTRANSCOM to determine correct field size and best approach for 

implementation. 

m. Logistics Asset Support Estimate (LASE) and Proposed DLA Alternatives to LASE. 

BACKGROUND: The LASE procedures are found in MILSTRAP chapter 14 (with corresponding 

DLMS procedures in Volume 2 of the DLMS manual). LASE provides for an automated process for 

Services to submit transactions to IMM to determine their ability to support contingency, operation 

plans, projects and other programs. The automated replies to those transactions provided general 

estimates of the type of supply support that could be anticipated and also provided on-hand and due-in 

data. DISCUSSION: Mr. Jim Fazzio, DLA J-33, provided the PRC with a briefing on DLA 

recommended alternatives to LASE. He indicated that when DLA implemented EBS, the LASE 

functionality was not included in the design. Mr. Fazzio said that the only Services submitting LASE 

transactions to DLA are Army, and to a much lesser degree, the Navy. DLA has not responded to LASE 

transactions submitted to EBS (Routing Identifier Code SMS). DLA has made efforts to reach out to the 

Services to determine if these transactions are still needed, but no responses have been received. A draft 

PDC has been sent to DLMSO outlining alternative options to LASE. These alternatives include a 

Supportability Analysis Tool and Stock Out Report available in EMALL. These reports are scheduled to 

be merged into a single report. Ms. Kara Cronin, EMALL PMO, provided a demonstration of these 

alternatives. For the Stock Out report, the Weapon System (WS) option was demonstrated. It displayed 

all NSNs associated with a selected WS and highlighted each “stock out” or “nearing stock out” NSN 
16 

and provided its projected get well date. The Supportability Tool was demonstrated using a single NSN 

inquiry, but it can be inquired by a multiple NSN technique. This tool displayed data pertinent to the 

NSN, including its essentiality code, monthly consumption rate, lead times and backorders. It was 

suggested that when these reports are combined that a summary capability by various keys be added in 

order to enhance its usefulness, e.g., ability to provide summary totals of all NSNs for a specific WS 

with stock out or near stock out conditions by selected essentiality code(s). SUBSEQUENT to the 

meeting Ms. Cronin provided screen shots of both the Supportability Analysis Tool and the Stock Out 

Report. These are available on the Supply PRC Web page (refer to the meeting agenda). Other 

alternatives to LASE include Integrated Data Exchange (IDE) and extensive data feeds provided by 

DLA that include information on individual NSNs. It was requested that DLA provide a description of 

each of the data feeds. There was also discussion that some data that was available in the LASE process 

may be missing from the proposed alternatives, to include, but not limited, to war reserve material. The 

draft PDC needs to be updated and submitted to DLMSO for staffing. Also, DAASC was asked to 

determine if the Asset Support Request (DIC BTA) were currently being sent to other systems not just 

EBS. ACTION: DLA to rewrite the PDC outlining alternatives to LASE, to include identifying LASE 

data that is missing from the alternatives, and provide a write-up on the data feeds currently being sent 

to Services. DAASC determine if LASE transactions are being sent to other systems within DOD.

n. Requisitioning in Support of Performance Based Logistics (PBL). This is an on-going 

issue from previous Supply PRC meetings. Refer to SPRC Meeting 07-1 minutes for background. Ms. 

Hilert informed the group that she had attended a July meeting on this topic with DLIS and Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) Program Office. A copy of the draft DLMS change proposal for requisitioning and 

establishing multiple sources of supply previously prepared and discussed with the Supply PRC was 

provided to DLIS. ACTION: Ms Hilert will link a copy of the DLIS/JSF meeting minutes to the SPRC 

07-2 agenda. 

o. Mode of Shipment Code Conversion Table. Ms. Hilert reported that she is working on a 

project to identify problems with implementation of the Mode of Shipment Code Conversion Table. 

This table supports compliance with the ANSI X 12 standards for transmission of transactions, while 

maintaining DOD codes for internal use. Recent updates to the table authorized by the Defense 

Transportation E-Business (DTEB) Committee and the USTRANSCOM were not fully communicated 

or adopted resulting in communication problems for WAWF and possibly for other DLMS users. 

ACTION: DLMSO is working with USTRANSCOM under a BTA tasking to clarify implementation 

status, issues, and the best way forward. The SPRC will be included on distribution of a survey being 

prepared to obtain more information from the Components. 

________________ Approved:__________________ 

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP 

Supply PRC Chair Defense Logistics Management 

 Standard Office 

Enclosure