2

for maximum flexibility in selection criteria and drill down capability from summary reports to 

individual SDR records (refer to Topic 2 briefing, demo, and documentation). Recommended 

updates to the FRD resulting from discussion include:

• Include Security Assistance options in the drop down menu 

• Add customer system numbers to the report detail 

• Display document type code as the one position code with cursor overlay for full 

definition 

• Define selection criteria for the three identified SDR status types for report views 

ACTION: All Components must review the FRD and provide comments by 

September 10, 2007. Specific feedback was requested on the following. However, 

comments and/or recommendation need not be limited to these: 

• Should selection criteria include additional (e.g. add SDR action code) or fewer (e.g. 

remove XXXX) 

• Should POC information be included on the Composite Screen (summary of all the 

individual transactions applicable to the SDR) or be left in the Transaction History 

(single transaction view) 

• Are there additional items required on the Composite, or should any items be removed 

• How should the reports deal with display of dollars and quantity when SDR contains 

multiple discrepancy codes (refer to FRD briefing, slide 9) 

• How should the reports deal with display where two SDRs are used to properly route 

non-procurement distribution depot (DD) receipt SDRs (Type 8) to the owner, who 

would in turn submit a customer SDR (Type 7) to the shipper or the SOS. 

• Should access to reports be restricted, e.g., by site, contractors (foreign nations will not 

have access). 

• Which “canned” reports should be readily available, i.e., run during the evening to 

reduce impact on daily operations (e.g., monthly report by source of supply) 

• Should the report display SDR dollars take into consideration unusually high dollar 

values, e.g. receipt of tank with missing parts 

c. Use of Acknowledgements within the SDR Process. Ms. Hilert asked the 

committee member to consider a future enhancement that would require automated systems to 

provide confirmation of the receipt of an SDR by the action activity. Ms. Hilert explained that 

the original concept of DLMS was that confirmation of transactions would not be required, 

however some system have developed these confirmation on their own. All committee 

members agreed a confirmation would be beneficial. ACTION: DLMSO will work with 

DAASC to provide a concept for a confirmation transaction for review by all. 

d. New SDR Purpose Code for Closed SDRs. Currently WebSDR can’t identify when 

an SDR is considered closed. Definitions vary within Component applications; however a 

standard definition to determine when an SDR is closed has been requested by customers and 

would better support reports and queries. One solution would be to expand the “Purpose 

Codes” in the SDRs transactions to better define the status of the SDR. In addition, an interface 

with finance could significantly improve visibility of closed status from a financial perspective. 

Ms. Hilert is requesting coordination with the Finance PRC to determine if Type Bill Codes for 

SDR adjustments can be adopted and made mandatory under DLMS. There was also a 

discussion of the policy on when credit is granted, up front after the determination is made, or 
3

after the discrepant material has been returned. Ms. Hilert indicated that she believes the policy 

is that FMS customers are not supposed to receive credit until the material is returned, however 

United States customer may receive credit prior to returning the material. DLA representatives 

said that the Enterprise Business System (EBS) provides up front credit for all customers. 

ACTION: DLMSO will research DOD policy on authorizing credit. DLMSO will pursue use 

of Type Bill Codes to identify debit/credit actions resulting from validated SDRs. All

Components should provide a recommended definition for a closed SDR status which would be 

feasible to provide to WebSDR for potential future enhancement to the DLMS SDR process. 

e. Duplicate SDR Criteria. Ms. Hilert expressed continued concern about the lack of 

standard business rules to determine duplicate criteria for a SDR transaction. The problem is 

complex as different systems have different rules regarding what constitutes a duplicate. The 

simple rule of one SDR per document number doesn’t cover all discrepant situations. Ms. Hilert 

indicated additional research is required to determine adequate business rules for DOD level 

duplicate SDR criteria to include scenarios below. This item was left open. 

• Partial shipments which may be reported separately with different discrepancy 

conditions 

• Concealed discrepancies which may be reported outside normal timeframes and after 

the original report was closed. 

• Initial SDR is submitted to one action activity, is rejected, and then sent to another 

action activity 

 f. Navy Issue Reversal Code. The MILSTRAP Administrator has requested the SDR 

Committee’s position on whether the Navy’s unique process of reversing the D7_ issue is an 

acceptable approach for processing discrepant material the Navy receives from the DLA depot. 

If not acceptable the process will be identified as temporary for the Navy’s Uniform Automated 

Data Processing System 2 (U2) until it is replaced and would not be used for modernized 

systems. Previous discussion with Mr. George Gray, DLA J-373 and Navy Inventory Control 

Point (NAVICP) representatives indicated that existing Navy policy is that discrepant material 

received from the distribution depot would not be processed as a receipt to customer records, 

instead an SDR would be submitted and if credit was authorized, the material would be returned 

to the depot and a D7_ reversal would be processed. DLMSO is concerned that material not 

receipted properly might be lost during the interim period while the SDR is being processed. 

Howard Frenya from NAVSISA was concerned that previous discussions between DLA and the 

Navy did not include a U2 representative. Mr. Francis Burke, DDC J3/4 indicated that he would 

initiate another meeting with the Navy to resolve the issue. ACTION: DDC J-3/4 and DLA 

HQ J373 will meet with Navy to resolve the issue. . ACTION: Army to provide 

comments/concurrence to PDC 264, Revise DS 867I Issue Navy Reversal (MILSTRAP D7). 

g. DLMS Enhancement Request. A DLMS enhancement was submitted by the Navy 

during early DLMS (MODELS) development to provide additional data in the SDR response to 

support development of a traceable shipment follow-up or to produce a Transportation 

Discrepancy Report (TDR) (refer to Topic 7 slide). Ms. Hilert indicated that another way to 

provide this information would be to adopt shipment status enhanced data content and capture 

this information in WebVLIPS and the Global Transportation Network (GTN) making it 

accessible to customers who do not yet have DLMS capable systems. The Navy and GSA said 

they would prefer to have the information in the SDR Response. ACTION: As a first step,
4

DLA will assess level of effort required in DSS to add the new shipping data in the SDR 

response. If feasible, a DLMS change will be developed. 

h. DLMS Change Proposals. Ms. Hilert provided an overview of a number of SDR 

related DLMS changes currently under development, in staffing, or awaiting implementation 

(changes appear below in numerical sequence). 

 (1) PDC 176A, Mandatory Identification of Detail Level Packaging 

Discrepancy Codes. This change requires mandatory identification of four-digit packaging 

discrepancy sub-codes in WebSDR rather than the two-digit packaging (P) type codes. The 

original PDC was put on hold after staffing. The SDR Committee agreed after the last meeting 

to pursue mandatory use at DDs and for USAF DOD WebSDR users. ACTION: DLMSO will 

update the PDC and re-staff.

 (2) ADC 196, Business Rules for SDRs Resulting from Lateral 

Redistribution Order (LRO) for DLA-Managed, Non-Army Managed Item (NAMI) 

Owned Material. This change defines proposed routing and process of SDRs that result from 

DLA ICP/IMM directed LRO shipments under the total asset visibility (TAV) program. This 

proposed routing and processing change is only applicable for DLA directed LRO shipments 

under TAV where the material is managed by DLA but owned by the TACOM Rock Island, IL, 

Non-Army Managed Items Product Support Integration Directorate (RIC AJ2) and shipped from 

an Army site. This change is partially implemented; pending full implementation for Army 

automated interface.

 (3) ADC 206, Discrepancy Reporting for Wood Packing Material (WPM).

This change establishes procedures and a new discrepancy code to be used for reporting 

shipments containing non-compliant WPM. There are phytosanitary requirements for WPM 

imposed by the United Nation guidelines to protect forest world wide against pest infestation. 

DOD Components engaged in packaging of materiel for transnational shipments are required to 

comply with DOD guidance for WPM in order to gain access to aerial and water ports. If these 

procedures are not followed, there is a risk that improperly marked materiel will become 

frustrated cargo, destroyed at the port or be required to be repacked at the port of debarkation, 

causing increased cost and time delays to DOD. The new discrepancy codes have been 

implemented; however the change is pending full operational use (refer to Draft PDC, New 

Document Type Code for Consolidation Containerization Points (CCP), below).

 (4) ADC 210/210B, Identification of SDR Document Type (includes National 

Inventory Management Strategy (NIMS) and Non-DSS Depot Receipts). This change adds 

new document type categories and modifies WebSDR so that the document type may be 

assigned by direct user input and will be shown on the SDR query view. It also allows for a 

sub-type for DRMS SDRs and allows for the owner/manager to be entered by web users. This 

change is scheduled for implementation September 2007. 

 (5) ADC 225/225A, DOD WebSDR Requirement for Information Copy. 

This change establishes two different procedures for WebSDR/DAAS creation/transmission of 

an information copy of an SDR in response to an SDR reply reject code sent to DAAS. The 

reject condition is applicable when the DD is the action activity and the SoS can’t process the 
5

DD reply due to lack of a record establishing the basic report. Changes required by this ADC 

are currently being tested by DAASC and DLA and it is scheduled to be implemented in 

September 2007 (updated subsequent to the meeting).

 (6) PDC 226, WebSDR/SDR Transaction Edits: Forwarding and Follow-up 

Timeframes (Supply/SDR). This change proposes three new edits for the WebSDR process 

that will improve data quality and enforce existing business rules. Follow-up transactions will 

be edited to ensure that an appropriate time has elapsed before follow-ups may be submitted; 

SDR replies forwarding the original report to a new action activity (reply code 504) may not be 

used to forward Distribution Depot receipt SDRs from the material owner to the Source of 

Supply and SDR replies requesting forwarding of the SDR to a new action activity (reply code 

504) may not be used to forward historical or other record types which lack full data content 

necessary to establish a basic SDR report transaction. The discussion was centered on the 

current rules for owners notified of distribution depot discrepant non-procurement receipt (Type 

8) which requires two separate SDRs to function properly within the current system constraints. 

The depot would initiate a Type 8 to the owner, who would in turn submit a Type 7 to the 

shipper or the SoS. DLA and Army representatives indicated they would prefer to see a 

different SDR Type identified for these types of discrepancies which would allow one SDR to 

be prepared and sent to the correct action activity. ACTION: DLA HQ will work with the 

DDC to prepare a PDC proposing a new SDR Type Code and processing instructions. DLMSO

will remove this aspect from the PDC 226 and issue the approved change for the remaining 

procedures. 

 (7) ADC 245A. Notification for Distribution Depot (DD) Product Quality 

Deficiency Report (PPQDR) Exhibit Receipt. This change defines new routing and 

processing changes for SDRs prepared by DDs to notify Air Force managers of the arrival of 

Air Force-owned PQDR exhibits and is designed to support expansion for other Services. The 

change requires new routing rules at DAAS. Two new data elements are added to the SDR 

transaction to support the Air Force requirement and pre-position cross-reference information to 

support exhibit tracking for other Services. This change is a variant of the business rules 

already implemented for DLA-managed material under ADC 188. These business rules may be 

applied to other Components by agreement with DLA. This ADC is pending implementation in 

October 2007. However, DLMSO was alerted by DLA that the AF plans to terminate the G021 

application to which these SDRs will be routed. ACTION: DLA and AF must confirm the 

requirement prior to DAAS programming. 

 (8) Planned PDC, USAF Logistics Support Centers Information Copy 

Distribution. This change was discussed at the last SDR meeting but has not been documented 

by the Air Force. ACTION: USAF to confirm requirement and submit PDC as applicable. 

 (9) DRAFT PDC, New Type Discrepancy Code for WPM at CCPs. This 

change is associated with ADC 206 above and will establish procedures for SDRs submitted by 

CCPs in order to recoup the costs of replacing wooden pallets/containers that are constructed 

from non- compliant WPM. The new type code will be used to signify that standard SDR data 

content edits may not apply, e.g., there may be multiple NSNs on a single pallet. DLMSO has 

provided feedback to DLA and the PDC should be available for staffing shortly. 

 
6

 i. Implementation Goals and DAAS Priorities. 

 (1) Army Interface. There was a discussion regarding when the Army’s USA 

Electronic Product Support (AEPS) SDR system would implement a full DLMS compliant 

interface with WebSDR. The Army representatives indicated they were funded to interface with 

WebSDR using a user defined file (UDF) not DLMS and the Army is not currently willing to 

provide addition funding for AEPS, which is considered a legacy system, to become DLMS 

compliant for SDRs. The Army has developed an SDR module in the Logistics Modernization 

Program (LMP) which will be DLMS compliant. However, there is a concern about the timing 

of the DLMS 842 transaction implementation under LMP since it was not included in the Jump 

Start initiative. Ms. Hilert indicated that since the Army’s LMP system will be implemented 

with a phased approach by Command, AEPS will be around for a number of years. Therefore, a 

DLMS interface between AEPS and WebSDR should be reconsidered. Ms. Hilert asked if it 

would be possible for the funding previously provided could be used for this DLMS interface. 

The Army should also consider submitting a request for BTA funding under the FY08 Jump 

Start program. ACTION: The Army is to determine if the DLMS 842 transactions, to include 

the SDR, the Storage Quality Control Report, and the Stock Screening Request, are within the 

scope of LMP. The Army is to look into the feasibility of using the existing AEPS funding 

toward developing a DLMS interface with WebSDR; determine an estimate of additional 

funding needed; and evaluate pursuing funding through the Army and/or BTA. 

 (2) GSA Interface. There was a discussion on when the GSA interface with 

WebSDR could be implemented. ACTION: The GSA representative agreed to provide status 

and a point of contact (POC) to move this forward. 

 (3) IUID Functionality. Ms. Hilert asked when EBS would implement the 

IUID functionality. This change appears to be on hold with the earliest implementation in Feb 

08. ACTION: DLA must confirm planned implementation date and requirements for 

coordination with DAAS needed programming updates. 

 (4) System Access Roles and Levels. DAASC had not completed the 

programming required to fully automate this process and continues to manually control access 

in coordination with Component POCs. Ms. Kohlbacher, DAASC Program Manager, indicated 

that the manual workload was manageable at this time. Access control edits are implemented. 

j. Status/Follow-up from December 2006 Committee Meeting 

 (1) Army Pseudo Receipt SDRs. Army implementation of the Material Receipt 

Acknowledgement (MRA) resulted in automatic generation of SDRs for non-receipt or shortage 

(based on MRA with discrepancy code F). Army retail systems do not recognize partial 

shipments and may submit SDRs based upon receipt of the initial partial shipment while the 

remaining shipment is intransit. These pseudo receipt SDRs are submitted by hard-copy, 

sometimes without further research, and could result in significant necessary workload for the 

action activity. Ms. Hilert indicated that partial shipments are a discussion topic for the monthly 

meeting between senior DLA and Army leaders. As a result of the monthly meeting, the Army 

has now agreed that future systems will incorporate the ability to recognize partial shipments. 
7

ACTION: DLA or GSA should report any high volume submitters to the Army for training to 

ensure manual review prior to SDR submission. 

 (2) Army Proposal: SDR and Equipment and Maintenance Inspection 

Worksheet, DA Form 2404. Currently at DDs co-located with Army maintenance sites, there 

is a unique SDR procedure for documenting missing and damaged material associated with 

major end items, e.g. tanks. When an Army unit returns a tank, a depot employee inspects the 

tank and fills out a DA Form 2404, Equipment Inspection and Maintenance Worksheet, which 

indicates the NSNs and cost of the items missing from the tank. In addition a SF 364, SDR is 

prepared in DSS and a hard copy of the SF 364 along with the DA 2404 is e-mailed to the Army 

ICP. At the Army ICP, the SDR and the DA 2404 data must be input into the AEPS System. 

The action from the last meeting was further discussion was needed between the Army and 

DDC/DLA. No further discussion has occurred. ACTION: DDC and Army meet to discuss 

solution.

 (3) Joint Component Instruction/DLMS Manual Vol 2, Chapter 17, Change 

4. The update to the joint instruction has not been completed since the last SDR meeting. 

However, the DLMS Manual has been updated and published and can be accessed on the 

DLMSO website. Ms. Hilert proposed that the joint instruction be cancelled and the DLMS 

manual be used as the policy and procedures for SDRs. She indicated that the DLMS manual is 

easier to maintain and could be updated quicker than a joint instruction. Having only one 

document would eliminate the double workload required today. ACTION: All Components

are to provide comments/concurrence on eliminating the joint instruction by September 10. 

 k. Wrap-up. Ms. Hilert expressed gratitude to the participants for their contribution to 

making this a successful and informative meeting. The next full Committee meeting will be 

scheduled at a later date. Telephonic meetings will continue every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. on 

the DLMSO call-in number (703-767-5141 (DSN 274)) with topics/participation from the 

Components as needed. 

________________ Approved:________________________ 

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP 

Supply PRC Chair Director 

 Defense Logistics Management

 Standards Office