DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 220606221 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION 

October 17, 2013 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Process Review Committee 

(PRC) Meeting 13-03, Focused on Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA), 

September 19, 2013 

The attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PRC Meeting 13-03 are forwarded for your 

information and action as appropriate. 

The DLA Logistics Management Standards Office points of contact are Ms. Mary Jane 

Johnson, (703) 767-0677; or email marv.jane.johnson@dla.mil, Ms. Ellen Hilert, (703) 767-

0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil, Ms. Heidi Daverede, (703) 767-5111 or 

email heidi.daverede@dla.mil, and Mr. Kenneth Deans, (703) 767-2611 or email 

kenneth.deans.dla.mil. 

Attachment 

As stated 

DISTRIBUTION: 

ODASD(SCI) 

SupplyPRC 

Attendees 

cc: Pipeline Measurement PRC 

Finance PRC 

cb~~ DONALD 

Director 

C. P~ ~ 

DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office 
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060·6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

October 17, 2013 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Process Review 

Committee (PRC) Meeting 13-03, Focused on Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement 

(MRA), September 19,2013 

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 review and discuss MRA requirements and MRA Report enhancements. A 

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

webpage www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Archives/archives sprc.asp. Meeting related material is 

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

Brief Summary of Discussion: The Supply PRC co-chairs, Ms. Mary Jane Johnson (DOD 

MILSTRAP Administrator), Ms. Ellen Hilert (DOD MILSTRIP Administrator), Ms. Heidi 

Daverede (DOD MILSTRIP Alternate), and Mr. Kenneth Deans (Pipeline Measurement PRC 

Chair), facilitated discussion. Action items are to be worked within 30 days of this 

memorandum unless otherwise noted. 

Review of Meeting Topics: 

a. MRA Report Overview. Ms. Johnson provided an overview of the MRA requirements. 

The applicability of the MRA was addressed as were the current exclusions from MRA 

reporting. The MRA reporting and follow-up time frames were reviewed. Component Supply 

PRC representatives or designees are required to analyze the MRA Report to identify potential 

deficiencies in their Service or Agency MRA procedures that contribute to breakdowns in 

internal controls for in-transit wholesale stock and coordinating corrective action with 

delinquent/ non-reporting activities. In noting that the MRA was getting high level visibility as 

evidential matter supporting audit readiness, Ms. Johnson cited an upcoming change to policy in 

the draft DODM 4140.01 , "The owning DoD Component directing materiel into an in-transit 

status will retain accountability within their logistics records for that materiel (to include 

resolution of shipping and other discrepancies) until the consignee or receiving activity formally 

acknowledges receipt. 1

" Mr. Joe Baker, DLA Headquarters (J-85), voiced a concern regarding 

the effect this will have on audit readiness and revenue recognition, (e.g., not being able to bill 

from the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) until receiving the MRA). Mr. Baker stated 

that under Audit Readiness rules, billing while still being considered accountable for property is 

not allowed; under the policy cited, they are considered accountable for materiel until they 

1 Draft DoDM 4140.01 , Vol5 (target publication November-December 2013) 

Attachment, Page 1 
Attachment, Page 2 

receive an MRA. The group indicated this is a Comptroller decision/determination. Ms. Jan 

Mulligan, ODASD(SCI) noted this issue was also raised by the DWCF Group, which has already 

worked with the Comptroller (OSD/DWCF) to address this concern. Ms. Mulligan agreed to 

send DLA Logistics Management Standards Office the language that has been worked through

the OSD Comptroller on this issue, and DLMSO will forward the language to the Supply PRC. 

Note: Subsequent to the meeting, Ms. Mulligan provided the following excerpt from the draft 

DODM 4140.01, Volume 5: 

“2. ITEM ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL

d. In-Transit Accountability

(1) The owning DoD Component directing materiel into an in-transit status will retain 

accountability within their logistics records for that materiel (to include resolution of shipping and 

other discrepancies) until the consignee or receiving activity formally acknowledges receipt.

(2) The selling DoD Component is directed to bill the consignee or receiving activity 

upon the materiel being placed in an in-transit status, reducing their inventory and increasing their 

revenue accounts.

(3) Commercial carriers and intermediate distribution nodes, though not accountable 

for the materiel, are responsible for the care of materiel in transit to minimize and eliminate loss or 

damage of cargo as described in Reference (k).

 (2) [SIC] The selling DoD Component will retain an accountable record of in-transit 

materiel until the consignee or receiving activity formally acknowledges receipt.”

b. MRA Report Demonstration. Mr. Paul Jensen, contractor support to DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office, provided an overview of the MRA submission, follow-up, and 

follow-up response timeframes. He also explained the MRA Report criteria used to determine 

whether an MRA was received or not received. Mr. Jensen provided a live demonstration of the 

MRA Report Tool. He briefly described the nine existing MRA Reports and then used several 

MRA Report scenarios to show the data available on each of the existing summary and detail 

screens. There were several comments and questions during the MRA Report demonstration: 

(1) Mr. Mike Wilson, (Army G4) asked why there is only a single MRA Follow-up if 

no MRA is received and why multiple follow-ups are not sent? He noted that there are times, 

especially to places like Afghanistan, that the transportation time will take longer than the 

allowed time for the unit to receive a shipment. Mr. Bill Shaffer, DLA Supply PRC 

representative, noted that DLA was looking at the follow-up requirements. Time definite 

delivery (TDD) was being considered for a proposed revision to follow-up criteria. Ms. Hilert 

noted that a status code or policy similar to the Navy for deployed ships could be workable. It 

was noted that MRAs should be done for EMall purchases using the MRA input capability in 

EMall if not provided systemically. Ms. Johnson noted that revision to the MRA follow up 

criteria would require submission of a PDC. 

(2) A question was asked why MILSTRAP legacy DIC AS8 Shipment Status shows on 

the WebVLIPS transaction history screen versus the Shipment Status transaction that was 

actually sent out. Ms. Mary Maurer, contractor support to DLA Transaction Services, indicated 

this was due to a display space restriction and only the AS8 transactions are shown. 
Attachment, Page 3 

(3) Commander Patrick Brown, NAVSUP-N5, asked to confirm that the MRA Reply to 

Follow-up (legacy DIC DRB) transaction should be a systemic response to the MRA Follow up 

(DRF) transaction. It was agreed that if there is no response to a follow up it could indicate a 

systemic problem. CDR Brown noted the Navy may be seeing some issues with the MRA in 

Reply to Follow-up transactions (DRB), possibly due to communications issues from deployed 

units. CDR Brown noted the Navy will work their issue internally.

(4) A question was asked whether MRA reports can be formatted to display by part 

number. While the MRA format allows for entry of stock number or part number, the existing 

MRA Report results will not distinguish between types of stock numbers or part numbers from 

the transaction since the report is designed using the legacy format. 

Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Shaffer noted that DLA third party ordering systems generally 

use a generic materiel number (GM) in the NIIN field on a MILS transaction (not unique to third 

party ordering systems). DLA Construction and Equipment (C&E), as a supply chain with a 

proportionately large volume of third party ordering, ends up showing many orders with a GM* 

NIIN. Mr. Shaffer noted, “This in and of itself is not the problem, however, rather that there is a 

system that works outside of DLA Transaction Services which is causing a problem for MRAs. 

In other words, seeing a GM NIIN on an order or DRF may indicate the use of a third party 

system, but does not guarantee that is the root cause of lack of an MRA.” 

Action: Navy provide additional information if there is a specific MRA Report 

requirement relating to part numbers. 

c. Draft PDC 1086, Create New MRA Source of Supply, Report, Create Requisition 

Download File and Eliminate Shipment Discrepancy Report by Depot. Mr. Jensen provided 

an overview of PDC 1086, which consists of 3 changes DLA proposed for the MRA Report: 

(1) Eliminate the MRA 04 Shipment Discrepancy Report by Depot. There was no 

objection by the Supply PRC group to this change. 

(2) New MRA Report by Source of Supply. DLA proposed a new MRA Report by 

Source of Supply to enable wholesale inventory control points (DLA and Services) to report 

metrics on how well the Services acknowledge receipt of materiel the ICP shipped out of 

wholesale assets, for a given Service/Agency. The concept for the report was reviewed and 

examples of the proposed MRA Source of Supply Summary and Detail Reports were reviewed. 

There were no concerns noted for the proposed MRA Source of Supply Report. 

(3) Create Requisition Data Download File. DLA’s request for the requisition data 

download file was positively received. Mr. Wilson noted that the Services look to see where the 

Follow-up for Delinquent MRA transaction was sent and would like to include a view that 

identifies the automated information system that received the follow-up transaction. Mr. Wilson

requested three data pattern (DP) communication routing identifiers (COMMRI) also be added to 

the data requirements for the download file as well as the MRA Detail Report. The three DP 

COMMRIs2

 will help the Army (and others ) to determine the originating system generating the 

 

2 COMMRIs are the “mail boxes” to which DLA Transaction Services routes logistics transactions. Each 

DoDAAC, RIC or Distribution Code may have one or two COMMRIs, including the Data Pattern (DP) or main 
Attachment, Page 4 

requisition, what system the requisition was routed to, and what system received the follow-up 

for delinquent MRA. Mr. Wilson noted the COMMRIs would be most helpful to him, more 

than other data fields, when looking at MRA reports. The key is to see what system submitted

the requisition transaction and which system received the follow-up for delinquent MRA. Ms. 

Hilert agreed these would be valuable data, but further discussion and research with Mary 

Maurer and the DAAS team is needed to see if it is feasible. DLA Transaction Services noted 

that the DP COMMRIs are not currently stored and there would be multiple issues to address to 

see if this is feasible. 

The three DP COMMRIs requested by the Army are 

• DP_COMMRI that originated the requisition, 

• DP_COMMRI for the requisitioner DoDAAC in the DOD Activity Address 

Directory (DoDAAD), and 

• DP_COMMRI to which the Follow-up for Delinquent MRA transaction was 

transmitted. 

Action: DLA Transaction Services review requirement for adding the three data 

pattern COMMRIs and identify any issues with the requirement. 

Response subsequent to the meeting: The initial response from DLA Transaction 

Services (Oct. 11, 2013) indicated the requisition data download file and DP 

COMMRI requirement is feasible. DLA Transaction Services raised multiple 

questions about the configuration that will be addressed in PDC 1088. 

d. Draft PDC 1087, Receipt Transaction Exclusion for MRA Reports. Ms. Johnson 

provided an overview of the proposed MRA Report exclusion criteria identified in PDC 1087. 

At various Supply Process Review Committee meetings, the DOD Components have identified a 

disconnect with the MRA Report selection criteria for excluding items when the issuing ICP 

expects and receives a Receipt transaction on an intra-Component basis, rather than an MRA 

transaction, as a result of the ICP’s shipment of wholesale assets. This scenario is excluded from 

the MRA process, however these items often show up on the report as ‘no MRA received’ even 

though no MRA is expected or required. There is no expectation that the issuing/owning 

wholesale ICP would receive both an MRA transaction and a Receipt transaction from the intraComponent reporting activity. To close this known gap, this change proposes revising the report 

selection criteria to exclude items from the report when the issuing wholesale ICP does not 

generate a Follow-up for Delinquent MRA transaction for an intra-Component shipment out of 

wholesale assets within the required MRA follow-up timeframe. The rationale is that if the 

issuing/owning wholesale ICP is expecting a receipt transaction, rather than an MRA transaction, 

based on the Component’s business process, then the issuing/owning ICP would not follow-up 

for a delinquent MRA transaction. There is a separate process for the ICP to follow up for a 

Receipt transaction, which is unrelated to the MRA process. This standard generic logic is 

expected to work for all Components, rather than attempting to discover, document, and program 

for specific rules for applicable to each scenario/trading partner arrangement. One problem was 

noted for near term implementation of the new rule. The rule is dependent upon proper 

implementation of the MRA follow-up and it appears some Service modernization programs 

 

COMMRI and the Special (SP), secondary COMMRI. Having two different COMMRIs allows the transactions for 

a specific organization to be routed to two separate “mail boxes” or receiving systems (Reference ADC 1002). 
Attachment, Page 5 

have deferred this process. Staggered implementation is expected by the Services because of the 

current lack of DRF capability by some Services. 

Action: Supply PRC representatives to review the examples of the receipt scenario 

cited for each Component in draft PDC 1087, and provide language to include in the 

PDC from their Component within 2 weeks from the date of the minutes. 

Action: Supply PRC representatives identify if your Component is compliant in 

generating MRA follow-ups under MILSTRAP/DLMS rules, and if not, provide the 

anticipated timeline for implementation. 

e. Draft PDC 1088, Joint Supply and Logistics Metrics Analysis Reporting System 

(LMARS) Changes to the MRA Report. Mr. Jensen provided an overview of draft PDC 1088 

that addresses several administrative items relating to the MRA Report. There was no significant 

discussion on the Draft PDC 1088. Ms. Johnson noted that while MRA is a MILSTRAP 

transaction/process, MILSTRIP transactions and business processes are the underlying 

foundation for the MRA process and the report. Ms. Daverede noted that the MRA Report Data 

is generated from the set of data that is pulled for LMARS, and that is what is driving the first 

item noted in the following summary of the key parts of draft PDC 1088: 

• Update LMARS business rules selection criteria to recognize the DIC A3_ or A4_ as 

a requisition when there is no original source transaction (DIC A0_ ). 

• Recognize DIC D7_from a Navy activity to SMS (DLA) as a National Inventory 

Management Strategy (NIMS) post-post issue transaction.

• Document the MRA Report Business Rules in the DLMS Manual, Volume 2. 

• Revise DLM 4000.25-4, DAAS Manual, Appendix 5, MRA Reports, to update and 

clarify exclusions and update the entire AP5.2.12.5 Section to clarify the MRA 

Report and column descriptions. Additionally, align the MRA exclusions in the 

DLMS/MILSTRAP and DAAS Manuals. 

• Document the requirement for DLA to provide a list of Distribution Standard System

(DSS) DoDAACs and RICs to enable the data collection and display for all MRA 

Reports under the Service of the Ship To DoDAAC. Except when the Ship To 

DoDAAC is a DSS Depot, the data will display under the Service of the requisitioner. 

f. Draft PDC 1089, Create MRA Report Help Files. DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office will draft a PDC or administrative Approved DLMS Change (ADC) to develop 

Help Screens for the on-line MRA Reports that will help users navigate the MRA Reports and: 

1) explain the report options, 2) explain the report selection criteria, and 3) explain the data 

portrayed in the report. 

g. Future PDC for Same Area/Different Area MRA Tracking. This proposed change 

will enhance the MRA report by enabling reporting by “Same Area/Different Area” rather than 

the current method of CONUS/OCONUS. In the existing MRA Report, a shipment of materiel 

from a depot in Germany to a nearby unit in Germany would fall under the extended OCONUS 

MRA reporting timeframes, while a shipment from Germany to a CONUS activity would fall 

under the CONUS time frames. This disconnect in the MRA process can be eliminated in the 
Attachment, Page 6 

future by leveraging a planned LMARS enhancement to incorporate Combatant Command 

(COCOM) designation logic. As this concept evolves, DLA Logistics Management Standards 

Office will develop a PDC to take advantage of the emerging COCOM foundation being 

established in LMARS to provide MRA Reports by Same Area/Different Area based on 

COCOM, rather than by CONUS/OCONUS. Note: ADC 1025, Update of Routing Identifier 

Codes (RIC), DoDAACs, Reparable/Non-reparable National Item Identification Numbers, and 

COCOM designations in the LMARS, identifies the requirement for USTRANSCOM to 

identify the DoDAACs assigned to each COCOM to coordinate its reporting of TDD LMARS 

Reports. ADC 1025 is available at: 

www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/eLibrary/changes/approved1000.asp.

h. Review Documentation of the MRA Report Business Rules. Mr. Jensen presented the 

decision tree that captures the current and proposed MRA Report business rules and selection 

criteria. This completed decision tree will be used as the basis for the narrative version of the 

MRA Report business rules document that will be incorporated into the MILSTRAP and DLMS 

Manuals.

Action: Air Force and Navy Supply PRC representatives provide input on the pending 

questions identified on the MRA Report business rules decision tree. 

i. DLA – Known Gaps in MRAs. Mr. Bill Shaffer, DLA J331, provided a brief on known 

DLA MRA gaps. Mr. Shaffer noted there were several established DLA business processes

where the MRA was done by alternative means or was not designed into an existing process: 

• Medical Prime Vendor is a closed loop Tailored Vendor Relationship (TVR) 

system, mandatory MRA is done via other than 527R and is not visible to DLA 

Transaction Services. DLA is considering a proposal to leverage an existing feed to 

LMARS for various DLA prime vendor programs that will include the Medical prime 

vendor information and also make it available to the MRA reports. 

• Subsistence Prime Vendor is a closed loop TVR system, mandatory MRA is done 

via other than 527R. Mr. Shaffer noted there was an existing feed to LMARS that 

they are trying to leverage for the MRA. 

• Maintenance Repair & Operations (MRO) Program is a TVR system that did not 

require MRA submission via EDI when established. This is getting “high level” 

attention. To meet audit requirements, DLA is considering either use of standard 

DLMS transactions/business processes or use of DOD EMALL. 

• Industrial Prime Vendor (IPV) Program, the Army and Air Force programs differ, 

but neither have MRAs from the customer for bin fill operations (some vendors do 

MRA or Receipts/D6K for the initial shipment to the contractor supporting the 

Service maintenance activity). To meet audit requirements, DLA is considering 

either use of standard DLMS transactions/business processes or use of DOD EMALL. 

• Kentucky Logistics Center (KYLOC) / Recruit Training Centers have MRAs, but 

lack shipment status (AS_) from the storage location (or ICP). This causes a gap in 

recognizing the shipment is eligible for the MRA Report during DLA Transaction 

Services processing. 
Attachment, Page 7 

• EMALL, currently uses an 861 EDI transaction for MRA, and is actively working to 

re-map to the 527R MRA transaction. Target implementation date is first quarter 

FY2014. 

Action: DLA provide a periodic update to DLA Logistics Management Standards 

regarding the status of implementing an MRA solution for the processes identified in 

this section with known MRA gaps. 

j. Navy – Known Gaps in MRAs. Ms. Shannon Winters provided a brief on known gaps 

in the Navy MRA reporting but did qualify the briefing by noting that Navy is 

performing further review and analysis and will provide updated information upon 

completion. One specific gap noted was for the RSupply afloat sites (not a fully 

automated process) that requires manual intervention by the shipboard Supply 

Department personnel to execute the MRA output file. This can result in failing to send 

MRAs or sending duplicate transactions. A question was asked whether the Navy Single 

Supply Baseline initiative will fix this known MRA gap in R-Supply. 

Navy ERP – Ms. Winters noted that as currently designed, Navy ERP does not require 

the MRA transaction in any situation and was designed to look for receipt transactions to 

close out orders and change inventory balances. Navy ERP will use an MRA to post 

proof of delivery when a receipt transaction was not received. Since the MRA (DRA) 

transaction is not required in Navy ERP, the Follow-up for delinquent MRA transaction 

is not sent out. DLA Logistics Management Standards Office noted that if Navy ships an 

item to a Service customer out of Navy wholesale assets, that Service will provide an 

MRA to Navy ICP, and not a receipt. Ms. Hilert further noted that not providing an 

MRA for DVD shipments is an audit issue and is cited in the anticipated DoDM 

4140.01, “The owning DoD Component directing materiel into an in-transit status will 

retain accountability within their logistics records for that materiel (to include resolution 

of shipping and other discrepancies) until the consignee or receiving activity formally 

acknowledges receipt.”

Afloat – The Navy also has unique logic in DAAS for routing the MRA transactions 

(Navy Brief slide 6). The Navy was asked to clarify whether the use of XZZ is a Pseudo 

RIC and used as a null value in processing. This was a rule created in the 2003 time 

frame because RSupply Afloat was having problems putting the correct RIC-To in their 

MRA transactions where the system was picking up the depot RIC vice the ICP RIC. 

This resulted in the ships receiving numerous Follow-up for Delinquent MRA 

transactions from the ICPs and creating a significant manual workload. 

Naval Air Stations – Navy ERP sends an MRA to record position 4-6 on the AS_ 

Shipment Status transaction. Since Navy ERP is often cited as the source of supply in 

record position 4-6 of the AS_ by the shipping activity, Navy ERP often ends up sending 

DRAs to itself. 

Action: Navy to update their status on known MRA gaps. 

Action: Navy to research and confirm whether the Navy Single Supply Baseline 

initiative will fix the MRA gaps that exist with R-Supply. 
Attachment, Page 8 

Action: Navy verify if the RIC “XZZ” is a pseudo RIC used as a null value in 

transaction processing. 

Action: Navy provide an update on their “No MRA Required” policy that is 

programmed into Navy ERP and ensure their procedures are consistent with 

MILSTRAP guidance

k. Army – Known Gaps in MRAs – The Army did not submit a briefing or identify any 

known MRA gaps. The Army was asked if the MRA transaction is implemented in the Army 

Logistics Modernization (LMP) program, both from the aspect of generating MRAs, and from 

the aspect of the ICP Following up for delinquent MRA. Due to a bad phone connection, the 

Army will respond by an email to Ms. Johnson after the meeting. 

Action: Army provide a response to identify any known MRA gaps and answer the question 

whether the MRA transaction (generating and follow-up) is implemented in LMP

l. Air Force – Known Gaps in MRAs – The Air Force noted that they had not identified any 

MRA gaps. 

m. Component update on Implementation of ADC 247which addresses submitting MRAs 

when a shipped line item is consigned as a split or partial shipment as the individual segments 

are received. 3

Action: Army provide input on implementation of ADC 247 

• Navy – The requirements of ADC 247 were not built into Navy ERP. Originally

in Navy ERP 1.0, the TCN was being saved on the delivery, but using deliveries 

was causing problems when the material was substituted, so the functionality was 

taken out of the design. The 1.1 design does include saving the TCN on a 

delivery but it is not being sent out on the MRA or Receipt (D6_) transactions.

Action: Navy provide timeline for working this change (e.g., development of an SCR 

or a scheduled implementation timeline).

• Air Force – Has not implemented but thinks that the procedures will help identity 

what is a duplicate. Note: The Air Force procedures were a work-around that use the 

quantity shipped to try to recognize different shipments and accumulate the total.

Action: Air Force report on implementation status to eliminate the workaround 

process and provide a timeline for the retail side (to include in the PDC). 

Action: Marine Corps provide input on implementation of ADC 247. 

 

3 DLMS, VOL 2, Chapter 10. Acknowledgement of Split or Partial Shipments. When a shipped line item 

(requisition document number and suffix code) is consigned as a split or partial shipment, submit an MRA, for the 

shipment segments as they are received. The split or partial shipment codes are part of the transportation control

number (TCN) structure in accordance with DTR 4500.9-R, DoD Transportation Regulation. Accordingly, 

reporting activities shall include the TCN in the MRA transaction when it is available. If the total quantity for the 

shipped line item is not received by the due-in date, report the missing quantity, citing Discrepancy Indicator Code 

F, in accordance with the guidance in the MRA transaction.
Attachment, Page 9 

• DLA Headquarters – DLA is researching status of implementation in their AIS. 

Action: DLA Headquarters provide input on implementation of ADC 247. 

• DLA Transaction Services – Provided a technical response by email to DLA 

Logistics Management Standards Office (9/13/2013). A Change request written; not 

yet implemented, DLA Transaction Services CRQ 01301 implements ADC's 221, 

223, 242, 242A, 247, and 253. 

n. MRA Report Anomaly Transactions. Ms. Hilert and Mr. Jensen presented a brief on 

MRA anomaly transactions that may be preventing MRA transactions from being successfully 

recorded. Specific events noted were:

• Receiving activities not updating records for incoming materiel based on supply and 

shipment status or shipment documentation upon receipt to reflect the suffix(s) that 

may be assigned as a transaction is processed in the supply chain.

Action: Services are to review procedures to ensure that the proper suffixes are 

identified in the MRA transactions to align with the suffixes identified in the 

corresponding shipment status. 

• If MRA transactions are sent to an activity other than a recognized wholesale ICP 

RIC, the MRA will not be recorded. 

Action: Marine Corps to research why MRA transactions are being sent to the RIC – 

LA9 (Advanced Military Packaging – MILSTRIP Orders, Oshkosh, WI). LA9 is not 

a valid wholesale ICP RIC per LMARS business rules and confirmed during the 

staffing of ADC 1025. If LA9 is in fact a wholesale ICP RIC, then Marine Corps 

needs to submit a PDC to update the LMARS business rules to reflect that change. 

• DLA Transaction Services identified a sample of Navy MRA transactions that 

appeared to have inaccurate dates in RP 60-62 (date receipt posted to record) and RP 

77-80 (Component use field that Navy may be using for consignee receipt date). 

Data requirements in MILS legacy Component use fields should be identified to DLA 

Logistics management Standards Office in a PDC so that they can be mapped to the 

corresponding DLMS transaction. If Navy is using rp 77-80 of DRA for a date field, 

it has not been documented at the DOD level, and is not mapped to the corresponding 

DLMS 527R MRA transaction. 

Action: Navy submit a PDC to define and document the data requirement for RP 77-

80 in the MRA legacy transaction (DRA) and clarify the procedures being used. 

• DLA Transaction Services is not receiving all shipment status transactions from GSA 

issues. DLA Transaction Services provided a list of 100 document numbers for 

review. Mr. Ken Deans, DLA Logistics Management Standards Office, completed 

research on this set of document numbers using WebVLIPS. Of the 100 transactions, 

39 did have shipment status, but issues from GSA depots do not appear to have 

shipment status. DLA Transaction Services also noted some of the document 

numbers were suffixed and are treated as a separate action requiring separate

shipment status. 
Attachment, Page 10

Action: GSA provide feedback on the results of their internal analysis of why some 

shipment status transactions are not being sent and take action to correct processing 

issues where not consistent with MILSTRIP procedures. 

• A possible gap exists in the Army transmitting shipment status for Army directed 

shipments is resulting in (some) MRA transactions with no corresponding shipment 

status. In this issue, GCSS-Army sends an MRA for post-post issues from the Army 

Working Capital Fund supply support activity with no shipment status. Army 

recommended solution is to suppress the MRA transaction for internal GCSS-Army 

issues. Ms. Johnson noted that the MRA is required for issues from wholesale stock 

even when internal to the Service. Without the shipment status, DLA Transaction 

Services will not track for missing MRA transactions. 

Action: Army to research Army-directed shipments that result in MRA transactions 

with no corresponding shipment status. If from wholesale assets, both a shipment 

status and MRA are required.

o. Ms. Johnson concluded the meeting by thanking the Components for their participation 

and noted that she will follow up with the Supply PRC representatives as necessary to clarify 

some of the issues discussed. PRC representatives should start seeing the PDCs for formal 

staffing in the near future. If more detailed Supply PRC review of the draft PDC requirements 

raise any issues, questions or additional suggestions, please provide them to Ms. Johnson by 

email for consideration for the PDCs before they are finalized for staffing.