1

 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

 HEADQUARTERS

 8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

 FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

June 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

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

(PRC) Meeting 15-01, April 29 and 30, 2015

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted the subject 

meeting at DLA Headquarters and via Defense Connect On-Line (DCO) for remote participants. 

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

webpage: www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/supplyPRC.asp. Meeting 

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

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Mary Jane Johnson (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD 

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

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

facilitated discussion. The initial list of action items for the meeting was distributed to the 

Supply PRC Primary and Alternate representatives on May 26, 2015. The Action Item Tracker 

contains the final approved action items for Supply PRC Meeting 15-1 and the current status of 

action items for Supply PRC Meeting 14-1. The Supply PRC 15-1 action items start at Action 

Item 45 on the tracker. The most recent version of the Action Item Tracker will be posted to the

Supply PRC webpage. Action item due dates are identified in the Action Item Tracker. During 

the review of open action items, the Components were requested to provide status of all open 

action items from Supply PRC 14-01 by May 18, 2015. See Action Items 1 - 44.

All new action items from Supply PRC 15-01 are due by June 26, 2015 unless otherwise 

indicated. See Action Items 45-86.

Review of Meeting Topics:

a. Agenda Topic 1 - Open Action Items from Supply PRC Meeting 14-01.

Components were requested to provide status of all open action items from Supply PRC 

14-01 by May 18, 2015 as these items are over six months old.

(1) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 1. In response to Action Item 5 from SPRC Meeting 

2013-01, in the absence of a DLA Distribution proposal for issue from receiving processing, Air 

Force should investigate the impact of their transition to DLMS (with possible termination of 

their Customer Information Control System (CICS) interface) and continuing need for IFR 

processing using either Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) or a web service from 

DLA Transaction Services.
2

Air Force Input: The Air Force is currently set up to receive a response within 30 seconds of the 

request using CICS. They estimate that the same response processed through DAAS would 

require 2-3 minutes. Air Force would need DAAS to process the response within 30 seconds and 

under the current processing model, and they feel that would be very unlikely to occur. The 

MILSTRIP Administrator suggested looking at a web service via DLA Transaction Services as a 

solution. DLA Transaction Services has experienced good results using web services for other 

time sensitive processes such as the DoD EMall funds verification module. Air Force agreed 

with that concept and felt it will help with issue-from-receiving (e.g., material can be issued 

directly from the receiving line and does not need to be moved to a storage location prior to 

issue). The MILSTRIP Administrator suggested a task force or sub-group be stood up to 

investigate use of web services for issue-from-receiving, pending the outcome of the Air Force 

discussion with DLA Transaction Services regarding a web service. See Action Item 46.

(2) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 3. Navy continues to work with the maintenance 

community to resolve the Routing Identifier Code (RIC)-To language in MILSTRIP C2.23 but 

has been unable to get anyone in the maintenance community to take a position on a language 

change.

(3) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 4 (Action Item 11 from SPRC 13-01). Address the three 

project codes related to requisitioning reparables for induction to maintenance (3AD, 3BB and 

3AB). 3AD and 3BB have documented procedures in MILSTRIP C2.22. Subsequent to Supply 

PRC 14-1 the Army indicated a draft PDC was being developed to fix the project code language 

in MILSTRIP C2.22. 

Air Force Input: DLMSO to review Air Force input regarding routing logic in conjunction with 

the use of the 3AD, 3BB, and 3AB project codes. See Action Item 47.

(4) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 5. DLMSO to review and staff PDC based on draft 

provided by Army on May 7, 2015 regarding the proposed usage for project codes 3AD, 3BB, 

and 3AB.

(5) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 6. Navy action item updated to require submission of a 

system change request to indicate that the requirement to send shipment status for items picked 

up by DLA Disposition Services has been documented and placed in the queue for 

implementation.

(6) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 9. Army reviewed their automatic returns process 

(MILSTRIP legacy Document Identifier Code (DIC) FTA) and identified potential issues that 

may be preventing the release of the Prepositioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) transaction.

(7) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 12. Review existing organic maintenance transaction 

flows and identify any deviations from the DOD DLMS/MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Organic 

Maintenance Transaction Flowcharts identified in SPRC 13-01. Navy provided input to this 

action item, although Navy’s initial detailed review focused on commercial maintenance , with 

organic maintenance to follow later. Army and Marine Corps agreed to provide their response 

on the DMISA gaps in two weeks.

(8) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 13. Air Force acknowledged the need to eliminate the 

pseudo RIC processing; a new computer systems requirement document (CSRD) is in place to do 
3

so and use the ship-in-place process to change ownership to Air Force and then D035K will 

processes a materiel release order (MRO) to maintenance for induction. Most of the Air Force 

discussion was on the timing of the MRO ship-in-place. Currently, the Air Force uses an internal 

process where the item is shipped with a Supply Condition Code (SCC) X and Air Force changes 

the SCC in their system during receiving. This is done because to send the transaction through 

DAAS can take up to 24 hours (for AF system and DSS system processing). 

See Action Item 48.

(9) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 14. In the past, the understanding was that this process 

was programmed with incorrect DICs to accommodate the Air Force. DLA Distribution will 

review prior discussions and verify if the D6_/D7_ are properly used. See Action Item 49.

(10) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 17. In the discussion of this action item, Army stated 

that there may be a gap in its FTA process for generating prepositioned materiel receipts (PMR);

Army continues to research the problem. The end result of not generating the PMR as required 

by policy and procedures, is that materiel is being receipted to the wrong owner. Air Force 

(AFSC/LG) response noted that the Air Force system creates the PMR data from the FTA when 

the FTA is received in a timely manner.

Air Force input: Air Force stated that they are not getting PMRs from Navy. Navy requested 

Air Force provide example document numbers that they can research. See Action Item 50.

(11) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 18. DLMSO has not received complete responses on the 

status of change requests and target implementation dates associated with ADC 1071. Air Force 

did provide a response on April 28, 2015, but DLMSO noted the response was not acceptable. In 

order to facilitate the receipt of the materiel, shipment status needs to be sent by the shipper, not 

the SICA on behalf of the shipper. DLMSO requested Air Force go back and review ADC 1071, 

where this process change was approved by the Supply PRC in response to IUID reporting

requirements. It was noted that the intent is not to change the legacy systems, however all 

systems (including Air Force and Navy) must move to DLMS as part of the new process to get 

the shipment status (DLMS 856R/DIC FTM) to come from the shipping activity to both the 

SICA and the designated return-to activity (rather than shipment status from the SICA). Ms. 

Merita Briggs (Air Force) will send request to the other Air Force contacts at Gunter for review 

of this process. See Action Item 51. Army, Navy and Marine Corps still need to respond. If an

implementation date cannot be provided, then a system change request number must be provided 

to acknowledge that the requirement is in the programming queue. Navy noted they will make 

the change in their Electronic Retrograde Management System (eRMS) during a Tech Refresh 

(no dates provided). 

(12) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 19. Air Force concurs, but they continue to change 

ownership with logistics reassignment transactions outside of the logistics reassignment process. 

Also, Air Force has no plans to change their existing process in the near term. They are waiting 

for a change in contracts. There is an issue with Red River (Army site) rejecting Air Force 

transactions when the PMR was sent via an email, as they do not support the ship-in-place 

process. Air Force commented that DSS co-located depots at Army sites are problematic, where 

the DSS sites co-located with Navy are fine. See Action Item 52.

(13) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 20. Air Force provided the default owner RIC FHZ for 

unauthorized returns . DLA is working on collecting data on unauthorized turn-ins from the
4

Army order to provide metrics on volume of occurrences to the Army. In the original action 

item, the Army was to re-evaluate the use of the RIC AJ2 as a default owner RIC for Army’s 

unauthorized returns of consumable items, but the Army continues to require solid metrics prior 

to making a decision. 

(14) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 21. Addressed having the Integrated Materiel 

Management committee (IMMC) provide updated wording for DLMS/MILSTRAP guidance on 

who gets the receipt when there is no PMR. Ms. Ellen Hilert (DLMSO) noted that the existing 

language in the DLMS Manual (DLM 4000.25), Volume 2 Receipt Chapter as shown below is 

confusing (see the underscored text). . The wording below originated from Approved 

MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Change Letter (AMCL) 12/43.

C13.2.8.2.11.2. DoD-Managed Reparable Items. Report the Receipt Transaction to the 

manager of the shipping DoD Component. Do not include a discrepant receipt 

management code in the transaction. For materiel shipped between wholesale storage 

activities, report the receipt citing Reason for Materiel Receipt/Return Code N. IMMs 

receiving transactions reporting returns not-due-in of phase II reparables, for which they 

are not the IMM, will follow the materiel returns program procedures to report/ship the 

materiel as prescribed by the IMM. 

During the discussion on this item, it was noted that DLA does not have access to the primary 

inventory control activity (PICA)/secondary inventory control activity (SICA) relationships and 

that is needed to be able to determine the Non-consumable Item Management Support Code 

(NIMSC) 5 relationship. “DLA Distribution Receiving Guidance” provides a seven step guide 

on how to determine the materiel owner, but does not have a step to look at the PICA/SICA

relationship. The Air Force requested removal of the Step 7 rule that assigns ownership to SMS 

when they cannot figure out who the owner is. Ms. Briggs will help with language for a PDC to 

use PICA/SICA in the Federal Logistics Information Service (FLIS) to help DLA identify the 

ownership for NIMSC 5 materiel. Pending outcome of PICA/SICA proposal, there may be no 

additional action for ODASD (SCI) or the IMMC as originally planned. Close Action Item 21 as 

overcome by this new action item. See Action Item 53.

(15) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 22. Services are requested to review local MRP 

procedures to preclude unauthorized returns. In particular, the Army was asked to consider wide 

dissemination of guidance to reiterate the requirement that materiel not subject to automatic 

returns should not be shipped without disposition guidance provided by the item manager.

(16) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 23. For recoupment of costly packaging and disposal 

services provided by DLA as the result of unauthorized returns, the consensus was DLA should 

pursue development of internal procedures to bill the returning activity, so these costs could be 

recovered from the turn in activity (as authorized under MILSTRIP/MILSBILLS/SDR 

guidance). DLA Distribution is working to determine the feasibility of capturing cost for 

submission to the DLA Comptroller. DLA Distribution and Business Development offices are 

also working on a new pricing initiative (Market Basket Approach), which includes penalty fees 

(e.g., no PMR and SDR).

(17) SPRC 14-1, Action Item 24. ODASD(SCI) requested clarification on the extent 

of the returned materiel volume and dollar value given DLA’s input (PMR briefing) that much of
5

the materiel is receipted correctly after some level of research. The consensus was to close this 

item as is. The materiel is getting receipted (possibly to DLA SMS as the last resort). 

(18) The remainder of the pending action items from SPRC 14-1 were not discussed 

and the Services were given until May 15, 2015 to provide complete responses to the SPRC 14-1 

Action Items which are now 6 months old. See Action Item 45.

b. Agenda Topic 2 - Pre-positioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) requirements. Ms. Mary 

Jane Johnson (DLMSO) provided an overview briefing of DoD level PMR policy, and the 

supporting DLMS and legacy MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP procedures. Some of the most common 

scenarios where the PMR is required were discussed and some of the more significant issues 

caused by lack of a PMR transaction were identified. Failure to generate PMRs is an audit 

readiness issue which results in degradation of the receipt process and inaccurate DOD 

accountability. The original SPRC 14-01 Component tasking was for the Components to look at 

all their logistics information systems to ensure PMRs were generated and updated as required 

by policy and procedures; identify where the PMR was not being generated (or updated), and 

identify proposed corrective action to include a timeline for correction. As a result of the review, 

DLMSO is expecting to find broken pieces within systems (e.g. EBS required a system change 

request (SCR)to provide a PMR for directed returns associated with SDRs and PQDRs. ). 

The requirement for a PMR does not go away just because a system is unable to generate a PMR 

internally. If a Component system cannot generate a PMR, then a manual procedure needs to be 

put in place. Ms. Hilert reported that a change to DoD EMall was implemented recently to 

display a simple template for manually preparing a PMR transaction and this is available to all 

Components. The discussion noted that Components can also use the DoD EMall MILSTRIP

order entry system (MOES) to submit the PMR. MOES is able to accept bulk uploads of PMR 

requests in the legacy 80 record position format.

c. Agenda Topic 3 - Component response to PMR review. Components were requested 

to present findings from an in-depth review of their systemic PMR processes (Supply PRC 14-1, 

Action Item 25). The PMR Scenarios document linked to Agenda Item 3 provides an extract 

summary of the most relevant PMR related policy and procedures. The following status was 

reported and the Services were granted an additional 30 days to respond: 

• Army – Not ready to report. In response to Supply PRC 14-1 regarding whether 

Army is generating the PMR for Army items owned being sent to other Service 

maintenance depots for repair, the Army indicated the Automatic Returns (DIC FTA 

process review was not completed, although problems were found that may be 

causing the PMR not to be sent out. 

• Navy – Not ready to report and noted this is a resource intensive action item and will 

need additional resources.

• Air Force – Provided a brief on results of their research of missing PMR data which 

DLA had provided to each Service (see following summary) , however the Air Force 

brief did not yet address the tasking to review systemic generation of PMRs per 

Action Item 25. AF did provide email input as noted in the Action Item Tracker, that 

Air Force is currently reviewing systemic generation of PMR. Accordingly Air Force 

has the additional 30 days to provide updated status. 
6

• Marine Corps – Needs the additional 30 days to respond.

The Air Force brief was related to the list of 140,000 document numbers provided by DLA as 

examples where no PMR was received. The Air Force briefing (linked to Agenda Item 3) 

identified multiple issues in response to DLA’s no PMR listing. Some of the findings appeared 

related to pseudo document numbers and DoD Activity Address Codes (DoDAAC). Mr. Mark 

Lieberman (DLA J-345) agreed to review the input from the DLA perspective and report back on 

findings. See Action Item 54.

d. Agenda Topic 4 - Implementation of DoDAAC authority code edits/funds 

verification in order entry systems. Ms. Jackie Brown (DLA J-3), provided an information 

brief on the problems caused by the improper use of DoDAAC authority codes. DoDAAC 

authority codes were established to allow Components a method to limit the use or role of a 

DoDAAC to something less than full requisitioning/ship-to/bill-to authority. After the authority 

codes were established, MILSTRIP edits were changed to enforce the DoDAAC restrictions 

within the DAAS. DAAS will reject transactions where the DoDAAC authority code is 

inconsistent with its use/role in the transaction (e.g., a ship-to only DoDAAC cannot be used to 

requisition goods or services). This works to stop invalid billing, but some orders are entered 

through DLA off-line or post/post systems such as Subsistence Total Ordering System 

(STORES), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFAVORS) and Tailored Vendor Relationships 

(TVR). DLA indicated that many of these off-line orders use DoDAACs with Authority Code 

05 (non-requisition). 

DLA presented reports to show hundreds of millions of dollars not collected because the 

DoDAACs used were not valid for requisitions. DLA will propose a DLMS change to expand 

authority code edits beyond DAAS and require revalidation of backordered requisitions prior to 

fulfillment. The new process will cancel order with an unauthorized requisitioner DoDAAC and 

notify customers to correct unauthorized DoDAACs designated as the ship-to or bill-to activity 

(these would be cancelled as well if not modified). One issue noted is that the authority code

may be changed after the requisition has processed successfully via DAAS but prior to order 

fulfillment due to backorder delays. The new process will use supply status (DLMS 870S/DIC 

AE8 transaction to allow the customer 7 days to submit a requisition modification before 

cancellation. After 7 days the order will be automatically cancelled. While this is process could 

result in limited corrective action, the real key is to validate the DoDAAC authority upfront for 

all systems allowing submission of requisitions so that invalid requisitions cannot be established.

e. Agenda Topic 5 - Missing PMR transactions. Mr. Lieberman presented a briefing on 

the audit risks associated with receipts without a PMR. The listings that DLA provided for 

missing PMR transactions does not mean the assets were not received eventually, but does 

highlight the additional burden required by DLA to research the correct materiel owner. The 

PMR is the key to proving that DLA placed the material in the correct owner’s account. It takes 

much of the burden off the human involved in successful execution of the receipt process. 

Without a PMR, the receiver will make an interpretation of who is the owner, relying on 

hardcopy documentation and DLA Distribution receiving guidance to determine the materiel 

owner. The absence of PMR leaves DLA and the Services vulnerable to high audit risk.

Although discussed in association with SPRC 14-1, Action Item 20, it was mentioned again there 

is a need for a default RIC by Service to assign ownership. DLMSO staff previously requested 

the Army assign AJ2 as the default RIC for Army returns lacking PMR or appropriate 
7

documentation. If no response is received from the Army, the action will be elevated to ODASD

(SCI). The Army indicated they are waiting for DLA reports to measure volume. The goal is to 

keep ownership of materiel with the most appropriate Service and off DLA books. Ms. Hilert

asked Mr. Joe Rutkowski (DLA Distribution) if there is a system change request to block receipt

of unauthorized returns into DLA ownership if it is not DLA managed materiel. DLMSO 

indicated support for staggered implementation (depot by depot) to assess the impact of using the 

Army default RIC AJ2. See Action Items 55.

To facilitate DLA working with the Components on their missing PMR listings, DLA requested 

Service points of contact for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Air Force already identified a 

point of contact for DLA to work with. See Action Item 56.

The tasking from the last SPRC (14-01) was to identify (for all categories) what systems can and 

cannot send the PMR to DLA. DLA indicated that the cost to process receipts and returns with 

no PMR is part of what is added into the cost recovery rate that drives up the cost for DLA (and 

the Components). Accurrate PMRs are important for efficiency and effectiveness in the receipt 

process. 

DLA discussed a DLA DSS PMR purge process and indicated a PDC is needed to document the 

PMR purge process to include the purge rate timeframe and process for unmatched PMRs where 

shipment is not received. DLA DSS noted they are purging after a year although that is not an 

authorized timeframe. During the discussion it was agreed that the PMR purge issue may have 

morphed into a need for an integrated process team (IPT) to work this issue in greater detail;

however, this PMR Action Item needs to be answered to determine what direction an IPT needs 

to take. DLMSO noted that the DLA DSS purge process had been discussed at the 2008 DLA 

PMR Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) meetings and that it is not an authorized DoD 

process. See Action Item 57.

NOTE: Subsequent to the meeting, DLMSO reviewed notes from the 2008 DLA PMR CPI. 

The PMR CPI recommendation to insure that only valid PMRs are in DSS, was that DLA 

consider a PMR Reconciliation or PMR Follow-up process, or some combination thereof. A 

PDC would be required for a PMR Reconciliation and/or Followup process.

The last item discussed by Mr. Lieberman is unauthorized returns of obsolete materiel. Return 

of obsolete materiel to DLA is an unauthorized return, as DLA no longer manages these national 

item identification numbers (NIIN). The obsolete NIINs can be identified through the FLIS with 

last source of supply (SOS)/Manager being a DLA legacy RIC S9I, S9C, S9E, S9G, etc. 

Materiel masters were never included in the DLA ERP due to their obsolescence and DLA has 

no need or interest in this materiel and the returns are causing an imbalance between DLA 

inventory and supply records. Currently, these unauthorized returns result in failed receipt and 

SDR transactions requiring unnecessary manual intervention, so Ms. Hilert asked that DLA 

determine an appropriate method of processing automatic disposals, possibly using a DLA

recycling control point (RCP) (RIC S9W) as the owner to preclude physical shipment of the 

materiel to a DLA Disposition Services Field Office. See Action Item 58.

f. Agenda Topic 6 - Air Force lack of visibility for Air Force owned materiel at 

DMISA sites whether or not there was a collocated DSS storage. (Note – this topic relates to 

Action Item 12 from Supply PRC 14-1). Subsequent to the SPRC meeting, ODASD(SCI)

established a weekly meeting with the Components to better scope this issue, the first meeting 
8

was on May 20, 2015. Ms. Briggs expressed concern that the Air Force has lost visibility of Air 

Force materiel at DMISA (other Services) site, attributing this problem to Service 

implementation of ERPs (although other factors may contribute). Air Force noted significant 

volume of missing receipt transactions for Air Force assets at the DMISA maintenance activity; 

nor does it receive condition code changes when asset status changes or shipment status when 

materiel is either returned to the Air Force or shipped to a customer. Additionally, Air Force 

does not receive inventory reconciliation transactions and is unable to determine if the asset 

balances are correct.1 This will be a major Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) 

write-up if not corrected.

Mr. Ralph Kinder (Air Force) provided input on the Tobyhanna and Corpus Christi depot sites 

(no DLA Depot involved) transactions that are primarily working. Ms. Briggs noted in response 

to a review of this discussion summary that “transactions are being sent, but there are significant 

issues with data elements in the transactions such as document numbers, etc.” For Navy, the 

only transactions they receive are receipts for SCC F assets from Crane (via monthly email), but 

not from the other Fleet Readiness Centers (FRC). Army is working issues with the Air Force to 

fill the gaps and expand the Tobyhanna and Corpus Christi LMP interfaces to other Army depots 

for DMISA and noted this is 80 percent resolved.

Ms. Briggs noted this issue was raised at the October 2012 Joint Physical Inventory Working 

Group meeting and has been outstanding since that meeting. Subsequent to this Supply PRC 

meeting, Ms. Briggs provided a summary of an email exchange with a Navy Supply Systems 

Command contact that addressed the Air Force not receiving carcass credit from Navy when 

returning an item for which they were the PICA. The Navy individual was working on a

NAVSUP HQ level instruction for NIMSC 5 returns when Navy is the PICA and wanted to 

confirm their procedures align with how the other Services handle inter-service returns. The 

Navy asked the Air Force if there were any instructions dictating how other Services should 

return materiel to the Air Force when Air Force is the PICA and Navy is the SICA? In a followup note the Navy contact indicated the Navy does not provide additional guidance on how SICA 

services return carcasses when the Navy was the PICA prior to the new instruction that was 

written to address a specific issue where the Air Force was the SICA and not receiving proper 

carcass credits. The Navy contact was asking the Air Force to confirm how the Air Force 

directed SICA returns when they were the PICA.

Navy noted that there are 650 interfaces with Navy ERP. Navy ERP was implemented at the 

Navy Warfare Centers but was not implemented at the Fleet Readiness Centers (FRC), Navy 

Shipyards or Regional Maintenance Centers. Mr. Louis Koplin (Navy, OPNAV N41) indicated 

the need to perform due diligence to find out if this is an IT related or human related issue. Ms. 

Mary Jane Johnson (DLMSO) commented that Action Item #12 (from SPRC 14-01) was 

intended to generate the input from the Services. The only input received was from the Navy 

who conducted a detailed review of their Commercial Maintenance flows input. Mr. Koplin

indicated he will follow up on Navy DMISA ERP implementation issues. See Action Items 59, 

60 and 61.

 1 DODM 4140.01 Vol 5: "Organic maintenance facilities will assume accountability of materiel upon receipt at the 

maintenance facility and while in its custody during maintenance actions using applicable standard logistics 

processes as prescribed in Defense Logistics Manual (DLM) 4000.25-2, Volume 2 of DLM 4000.25, and DLM 

4000.25-1 (References (p), (q), and (r)). Accountability extends through receipt, storage until repair, repair, 

modification, disposal, and shipment of repaired assets back to the receipt at the storage activity"
9

g. Agenda Topic 7 - Turn-in of DLA managed NSNs (bit and piece parts) in Air Force 

ownership at DMISA sites. The Inter-Service Support Agreements do not stipulate procedures 

for return of residual consumables (SCC A) subsequent to repair completion. The Navy stated 

that its DMISA sites are excessing the materiel and turning it in under Air Force ownership. Air 

Force has already paid for it, but Air Force cannot own wholesale materiel that is DLA managed. 

The Navy indicated the Navy DMISA sites did not have “courtesy storage” to retain materiel for 

future repair work. Air Force agreed to take this agenda item back for further review to sort out 

how they envision the process should work. See Action Item 62.

h. Agenda Topic 8 - DoD Comprehensive Inventory Management Improvement Plan 

(CIMIP) Phase II and the Lateral Support Initiative associated with CMRP. 

(1) Ms. Jan Mulligan (ODASD(SCI)) briefed the Comprehensive Inventory 

Management Improved Process (CIMIP) Phase II. This was an informational brief to provide an 

overview of where the DoD is heading. CIMIP II expands the scope of CIMIP I to include how 

inventory management interacts with procurement and maintenance management actions, 

milestones and measures. A key focus of the CIMIP Phase II is on forecasting accuracy, stock 

what is ordered, and deliver what is needed. 

(2) Contractor managed inventory will be a future focus to ensure inventory held by 

contractors is properly reported. ODASD(DPAP)is developing policy clarification.

(3) The Comprehensive Materiel Response Plan (CMRP)-II Brief identifies the future 

tactical-level lateral requisitioning concept. The focus is on Class IX (nine) items that are jointly 

used. (20 percent of Class IX is based on NSN count, not volume of items). Joint Staff J4 led a 

“rehearsal of concept” (ROC) drill on April 29, 2015 to review the proposed procedures from a 

Service AIS perspective, once as the supplier of materiel to another tactical unit and once as the 

customer requesting materiel from another tactical unit. The goal of the ROC drill was to 

identify systemic and procedural gaps, so that a determination could be made as to the viability 

of expanding the concept implemented by Army and Marine Corps at the tactical level to all the 

Services. The plan of action is to; 1) develop lateral support business rules to maximize materiel 

support to units in mission window while minimizing risk to units; 2) examine “Automated 

System Modification” requirements to enable execution of business rules using 

existing/emerging Service automated information systems (AIS); 3) conduct a limited Beta Test 

as a proof of principle to inform and facilitate implementation of CMRP on a broader scale; and 

4) develop cost estimates for required and recommended AIS modifications. The Approved 

DLMS Change 1062 dated June 19, 2013 formalized retail supply inter-service lateral support 

for immediate implementation between the Army and the Marine Corps; this serves as a starting

point for expanded use by Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard. 

i. Agenda Topic 9 - Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Briefing. Mr. Carlo 

Montemayor (DLA J3) provided an overview of the current DLA PBL contracts, planned DLA 

PBL contracts, and a more detailed look a planned Honeywell PBL that is a prototype multiService effort that evolved from the DLA Big Ideas Initiative. He also noted the current effort to 

establish a DLA PBL Office to coordinate PBL strategy, policy, customer engagement and 

ensure adequate workforce resources to support PBL execution. Attendees commented that it 

was unclear where the savings will occur. Mr. Montemayor clarified that Boeing approached 

DoD and said they could save DoD 20 percent by increasing Boeing’s role in the management of 

the supply chain, and DoD agreed. The pilot effort flows from the OSD Acquisition chain. In 
10

response to the Honeywell PBL initiative, Ms. Mulligan took exception that DoD was reducing 

inventory, rather than just shifting it to Honeywell. This led to a discussion of who owns the 

materiel and the requirement for the government to maintain visibility for the materiel in the 

possession of the contractor. Ms. Hilert noted a desire to see the transaction flow, to determine if 

the actual touch labor for the repair is done by organic depots and if it follows the typical organic 

DMISA transaction flows. Based on the Honeywell discussion, it appears the line item on the 

contract is for the repair service and the contract does not need to specify that the WAWF

Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance and Property Transfer (iRAPT) transactions be used. This leads 

one to question, is the government being billed for both parts on hand and parts ordered. Mr. 

Joel Auton (Defense Logistics Information Service) asked a related question, “When you have 

shown demand at issue, and when you do not use the parts in a repair, how do you cancel 

demand?” DLMSO took an action to provide the transaction flows as they are understood to be. 

See Action Item 63.

The DLA HQ PBL Office initiative was established to provide overall strategy, oversight, cross 

talk and integration. Ms. Hilert asked if IPV initiatives will also fall under the PBL Office 

purview since these seem to be a variation on the PBL concept. Also, ODASD(DPAP) and 

ODASD(SCI) expressed concern that we are overbuying inventory. 

j. Agenda Topic 10 - Security Cooperation Enterprise Solution (SCES) ERP briefing. 

Mr. Michael Hooper (SCES contractor) briefed the SCES ERP initiative. The mission is to 

improve the speed and agility of foreign military sales (FMS) case execution and save money. 

The way DSCA plans to meet the objectives is to improve standardized business processes, 

controls, and data structures and to leverage capabilities provided by enterprise resource 

planning (ERP). The capability and improvements include transparency in case execution data, 

efficient business processes, compliance with Federal and DoD standards and improved 

effectiveness in customer server and support.

FMS customers know and love the existing MILS transaction process. SCES is looking at the 

ERP as a seventy percent solution, and they have integrated with multiple system partners for 

deployment of Navy as the first implementation. The plan is to expand to other Services which 

will leverage the system partner integration and ultimately reduce overall development costs. In 

mid June 2015 the limited fielding decision is expected for executing “new” Navy cases in SCES 

and the full deployment decision is expected in October 2015 and all Navy Cases (new and 

existing) will be executed in SCES.

DSCA recognized the need to pay more attention to DLMS changes and be more involved with 

the PDC/ADC process since these may impact SCES. SCES DLMS implementation features Ab 

Initio middleware to communicate all EDI between DLA Transaction Services and SCES ERP.

Thus far, two PDCs have been drafted to support SCES development. One documents the SCES 

transaction processing to include the interim Y-Gate process for use between initial and full 

operating capability for Navy cases, and the other addresses an SCES interface with WebSDR. 

The future goal is to migrate FMS MILS customers to DLMS (12 -20 countries) using ERP to 

process FMS transactions in DLMS. Concept of using a DLA Transaction Services approved 

VAN, with DSCA to take the lead on creating a pilot and proof of concept. DSCA will begin 

with initiative to notify countries about the transition to DLMS and will have a process in place 

by 2019. Those with an ERP would need to look at moving to the SCIP.
11

There was a brief discussion about the need for DSCA to update their system support to 

implement several DLMS ADCs. One example would be ADC 1031 which included an update 

to the supply status transaction to capture repair cost associated with FMS “repair and return” or 

“return and replace” programs. See Action Items 64, 65, 66, 67 (DSCA), 68 (DLMSO), and 69 

(DLA Transaction Services).

k. Agenda Topic 11 - DLMS Change Status Review Briefing. Ms. Heidi Daverede 

(DLMSO) briefed the DLMS change status report. The change status report is maintained by 

DLMSO and posted weekly to the DLMSO website. The tool tracks the lifecycle of a DLMS 

change from proposal to implementation and provides an easy way for DLMS customers to 

search and track the status of all DLMS changes.

The report originated with the 1000 series DLMS changes; Only a few PDCs and ADCs prior to 

calendar year 2012 exist in the new report. The core database is Microsoft Access, but the 

reports are all presented in Excel. The Overview report is the DLMS change status report which 

lists all signed PDCs and ADCs. The DLMS Component Response Report may be of more 

interest to users because it identifies the PDCs that have been sent out for staffing, but have not 

been signed out as an ADC, and it keeps track of the Component responses received by DLMSO. 

The DLMS Overdue Component Response Report highlights problems to be addressed. Any 

PDC that is past its suspense due date and lacks a Component response, it appears on this report 

along with the number of days past due. A related report is the DLMS Component 

Implementation Status Report, which tracks the date the ADC was signed, and the target or 

actual implementation date of the change. The final reports in the series are the DLMS 

Publication and the Implementation Convention Report. The publication report identifies the 

DLMS change, Defense Logistics Manual (DLM) publication impacted and the formal 

publication change number. The Publication Report is provided to document if the approved 

change has already been updated in the latest DLMS manual. The Implementation Convention 

report identifies which ICs were impacted by which ADC. This is useful when Components are 

writing requirements and want to capture all the ADCs for a particular DLMS transaction, such 

as the 511R. 

At the end of each calendar year, an annual DLMS Change Status Report is created and contains

all new changes and highlights any changes made to prior PDC/ADCs for that calendar year. 

Each DLMS change is listed on its own page with all relevant information. The annual report is 

distributed to OSD DPAP, SCI and Comptroller, in addition to the all the Primary and Alternate 

Members of the Process Review Committees. One of the tasks in the annual report is for 

Components to review their implementation status for all ADCs and provide updates to DLMSO. 

While this request is made formally once a year, the DODM 4140.01 and DLM 4000.25 require 

that PRC representatives do this throughout the year as changes are implemented. 

l. Agenda Topic 12 - Review DLMS procedures for verification of excessive quantity 

requisitions (AMCL 39). Ms. Hilert reviewed the withdrawal of AMCL 39, verification of 

excessive requisition quantities. This topic was generated by a customer account specialist 

question sent to the DLA’s “Ask the Leader”. The approved DLMS change to address excessive 

quantity requisitions was approved in March 2002 (as AMCL 39) for joint implementation in 

2005. The intent was to use the DLMS 517M, Material Obligation Validation (quantity variance 

inquiry) transaction between the ICP and customer to validate the quantity. It requires joint 

implementation and was tabled because of this and the relative low priority. DLMSO asked for 

input in determining if this change should be re-staffed or withdrawn. Ms. Eileen Applegate
12

(DLA Supply PRC Representative) agreed to pull metrics and break them out by Service to 

determine if sufficient occurrences of the problem exist today to justify the programming effort.

See Action Items 70 and 71.

m. Agenda Topic 13 - DLMS implementation status/progress. Mr. Dale Yeakel 

(DLMSO contractor) presented an update on the DLMS implementation status and DLMS 

compliance. Between April 2006 and March 2015, the percentage of MILS to DLMS has risen 

from 12 percent DLMS implementation in 2006 to 75 percent in 2015. All Components have 

made progress, but Navy and Air Force have been stymied due to a lack of a clear ERP 

migration strategy. With the cancellation of the Air Force ECSS Program, the Air Force is in the 

beginning stages of planning & funding the Logistics IT System Modernization Program which 

will include their wholesale/retail materiel management mission. Navy currently has no DLMS 

migration plan for retail Afloat customers supported by its MILS constrained R-Supply, due to 

the cancellation of the Navy SSB initiative. Navy noted a replacement for R-Supply (Afloat 

system) is in the pre-acquisition phase. ODASD(SCI) has an interest in the Navy initiative to 

capture all the systems that are not DLMS compliant. DLA Transaction Services was asked to 

look at legacy MILS traffic and identify who is still sending MILS transactions. If not clear from 

the Communication Routing Identifier (COMMRI), DLA Transaction Services should check the 

Performance Based Agreement (PBA) to determine the Services still using legacy MILS 

transactions. See Action Item 72.

n. Agenda Topic 14 - Revise MILSTRAP/DLMS time standards for receipt processing 

to support DoDM 4140.01 policy (PDC 1124). Mr. Rafael Gonzalez (DLMSO) briefed the 

PDC 1124 revisions to MILSTRAP/DLMS time standard for receipt processing necessary to 

reflect the revised DoDM 4140.01 policy. DODM 4140.01 now requires the recording of 

receipts no later than five business days (not to include stow process) from the date the materiel 

is received and make associated assets visible from the point of inspection and acceptance within 

24 hours of recording receipts (Holidays and weekends are excluded). Time periods in the 

existing MILSTRAP designated seven to ten days, which did not align with the new DoDM 

4140.01 policy. Dates are tracked from the date materiel is released by the carrier to the 

receiving activity.

In addition, PDC 1124 eliminates a deviation that had been granted decades ago, to allow 10 

days, rather than 7, for processing receipt of redistribution orders (to include stow). This PDC 

also impacts DLA Disposition Services, which noted that they must also comply with DoD 

4160.21-M, Volume 2, which has a conflicting 5-7 day time standard for receipt processing. 

The PDC was staffed with the Supply PRC for review and comment. See Action Items 73 and 

74.

o. Agenda Topic 15 - New Supply Condition Code X (USAF PDC 1159 under DLMSO 

review). Ms. Hilert briefed a PDC request for the creation of a new Supply Condition Code 

(SCC) X, suspended (repair decision delayed). The use of this new condition code will allow for 

segregation of SCC X stock in a DLA distribution center. SCC X is not currently assigned, but 

Air Force allows unauthorized use of SCC X for the following: materiel beyond practical repair 

action held for emergency use until new procurement is received, materiel exceeds specification 

for repair at organic repair facility and is to be shipped to a contractor for which an extend repair 

process is being developed, and materials that must wait repair development and engineering 

concurrence.
13

Ms. Hilert pointed out the DLMSO additions to the PDC in the staffing notes and other 

highlighted updates. A concern was noted about the Air Force shipping items to maintenance in 

SCC X, and subsequently having their D035K application record a condition code change to 

SCC F prior to maintenance receiving the item . Draft PDC 1159 was adjusted during the

meeting based on clarification comments provided during the discussion. Based on Air Force 

comments, the PDC will be updated, to include clarification that an item may be shipped to the 

repair activity in SCC X. See Action Item 75.

A discussion ensued revealing that the Air Force Commercial Asset Visibility (CAV)

transactions do not go through DAAS. Ms. Hilert asked when this will be corrected as it is not 

compliant with DoD policy which requires that standard logistics transactions be processed 

through DLA Transaction Services. Mr. Koplin noted that Navy CAV is on a glide slope of “dejointing” and may be consumed by ERP systems. 

See Action Item 86.

There was also discussion of the DLMS 846A Asset Reclassification transaction. This 

transaction is a DLMS enhancement which allows the Components to request that the storage 

activity perform a condition code change. DLMSO is not aware of this DLMS capability having 

been implemented.

p. Agenda Topic 16 - ADC 1009A, DLMS Enhancements for Requisitioning to 

Improve use of Mark-For Addressing, Expand Authorized Priority Designator Validation, 

Correct EMALL Purchase/Credit Card Format Rules, and Require Distribution of Status 

for Requisitions Associated with Purchase/Credit Card Payment. Ms. Hilert briefed ADC

1009A and noted that many of the enhancements for this ADC were targeted for DoD EMall 

requisitioning and will be implemented with DLA’s transition to FedMall (scheduled for 

November 2015). The current EMall procedures require the supplementary address (SUPADD) 

DoDAAC to identify the bill-to DoDAAC as a method to identify payment via a purchase/credit 

card. When the requisitioner is not the ship-to, the requisitioner is forced to use a clear-text 

address for the ship-to because the SUPADD is not available. This inability to properly identify 

the ship-to DoDAAC in the SUPADD causes a ripple of problems. Select users (e.g., Air Force) 

are required to use Government Purchase Card (GPC) and clear-text addressing for the ship-to, 

but this bypasses the routine controls that validate the ship-to location associated with a 

DoDAAC and authority code edits are also skipped. When shipped via the Defense 

Transportation System, the missing DoDAAC results in a higher rate of frustrated freight. No 

DoDAAC means: no logistics metrics are captured, shipment status to ship-to location is 

prevented, cripples internal controls, and is not compliant with original MILSTRIP authorized 

scenarios. 

ADC 1009A implements new procedures to use third party billing Signal Code L and Fund Code 

XP (non-interfund) (where by the EMALL DoDAAC would be carried in the Fund Code to 

Billed Party Conversion Table rather than in the SUPAAD) to identify credit/GPC. The change 

should be transparent and work for DLMS and legacy users. Mr. Bob Hammond (DLMSO 

Finance PRC Chair) reported that all Services have completed adding Fund Code XP in 

association with Signal Code L and the EMALL DoDAAC to the Conversion Table.

ADC 1009A also adopts the inclusion of the mark-for party as a standard component of the 

requisitioning process (eliminating the need for use of an exception data requisition). While this 

will be needed for EMALL requisitions to ensure that the materiel is delivery to the appropriate 
14

office/personnel, it will also improve the DLA Materiel Processing Center processing and 

shipboard use for sorting material for shipboard locations. Additionally, the mark-for party 

provides an alternative location for identification of the authorized Force or Activity Designator 

(F/AD) I DoDAAC and will supports tighter controls and automatic downgrading of 

unauthorized use of Priority Designator (PD) 01, 04 and 11. 

In conjunction with the ADC 1009A FEDMALL implementation, DLA Transaction Services 

will remove the DoD-wide block on supply status containing the DLA DoDAAC assigned for 

EMALL in the supplementary address field. DLMSO stressed that that a good bit of integration 

is required for successful implementation and the FEDMALL transition is rapidly approaching. 

Services and DLA need to assess the impact and identify if there are any issues for resolution. 

Phased/staggered implementation is authorized for this ADC for some aspects of this change. 

See Action Items 76 and 77.

q. Agenda Topic 17 - Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) Data Exchange. 

ADC 1007 established a new standard transaction format to exchange PQDR data between 

systems. In a future scenario, Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP) will be 

tied into the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS) and DLA Enterprise Business System 

(EBS) will be able to share data via the DLMS 842P. Additionally, this ADC added the PQDR 

RCN to multiple standard logistics transactions for the purpose of exhibit tracking. Draft PDC 

1007D documents business rules for inter-Service/Agency data exchange when PQDR 

transactions are required and/or permitted at any point during the lifecycle of a PQDR. It also 

defines who may update a given PQDR data element. 

Mr. Ben Breen (DLMSO) provided an overview of the exhibit tracking process using the PQDR 

RCN, explaining that DLA Distribution is currently in the design phase for implementing this 

requirement. ADC 245 added the PQDR RCN as a discrete data element in the SDR, removing 

the need for submitters to use the remarks block. To facilitate tracking, the PQDR RCN must be 

included on the PMR, receipt, release order, and shipment status with a distribution copy to 

PDREP for exhibit tracking. 

Mr. Breen provided an overview of DLA Distribution Center denial in cases where there is an 

RCN mismatch. Scenarios include, 1) 940R Receipt mismatch resulting in a denial, and 2) 

picker goes to look for RCN, but there is a mismatch resulting in a denial. DLMSO proposes 

adding a new definition to existing Management Code Q to resolve both scenarios. DLMSO is 

developing a PDC to address the denial scenarios, by adding the PQDR RCN to the materiel 

release denial, and modifying the definition for Management Code Q. 

See Action Items 78 and 79.

Issues exist where the SDR transaction is being used for receipt confirmation to indicate receipt 

notification for selected receipts of non-conforming/suspected non-conforming materiel. Ms. 

Ellen Hilert emphasized that this is an really an inappropriate use of the SDR process and would 

like to see modernized systems develop the necessary workflow based upon receipt transactions 

containing additional information under DLMS (e.g., PQDR RCN for SCC Q exhibits. Ms. 

Hilert said an additional transaction should not be required to notify parties that the receipt has 

occurred, since this increases workload for DLA distribution centers and is not efficient. 

There was also a brief discussion regarding the vendor return process using DLA’s Vendor 

Shipment Module (VSM). Ms. Linda Miles, Air Force, questioned the two step process where 
15

the USAF cannot ship back directly to the vendor, but instead must work through the DLA 

distribution center and then to the vendor because this allows DLA to maintain an accountable 

record for the materiel. Ms. Hilert noted that this process is also used because it allows the Air 

Force to return materiel to a location with an assigned DoDAAC. This is necessary since many 

DLA vendors do not have DoDAACs and the Air Force cannot ship materiel to a clear-text 

address as the DLA distribution center can.

r. Agenda Topic 18 - Approved MILSTRIP Change Letter 3 – Warranties (withdraw 

or implement). Ms. Johnson briefed AMCL 3 on warranted reparables. The concept was to 

establish Supply Condition Code (SCC) W-Warranty to provide a means to identify, segregate, 

and control unserviceable warranted assets. This change was written before the depots were 

consolidated under DLA and the method to determine what was still under warranty was left to 

the Services to identify.

Ms. Hilert reviewed the current warranty information from DPAP. There is a Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause that requires collecting reporting and 

tracking warranty information in WAWF/iRAPT. PDREP is the repository for warranty data on 

serialized items. An implementation date was never established for AMCL 3 and it is really not 

implementable as originally written. AMCL 3 needs to be withdrawn or DoD level procedures 

need to be developed with appropriate implementing procedures. Ms. Hilert noted that 

ODUSD(DPAP) has made an effort over the past several years to have visibility of warranty, but 

procedures are required to define how to manage/track materiel on the logistics side. 

Mr. Koplin felt the existing PQDR process would address this issue. Ms. Hilert thought a 

potential option would because of SCC W on the Component Accountable Property System of 

Record (APSR) to better recognize materiel returned for repair under contract warranty. 

DLMSO will ask the PQDR Committee for additional feedback.

See Action Items 80, 81 and 82. 

s. Agenda Topic 19 - Revised procedures of logistics reassignment. ADC 12 revised the 

logistics reassignment procedures to provide for more accurate accountability using standard 

logistics transactions, thereby supporting audit readiness. ADC 12 was written for legacy 

MILSTRIP and MILSTRAP formats and procedures, but no implementation date was 

established. DLMSO will recast ADC 12 as ADC 1141, written for DLMS transactions and 

DLMS procedures. The DLMSO noted that for both consumable and non-consumable items, 

there are cataloging actions outside of DLMS/MILS that trigger the logistics reassignment 

process. ADC 1141 will require a joint implementation date and DLMS capability. The target 

ADC release date is the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. No comments from the group. See 

Action Item 83.

t. Agenda Topic 20 - Procedures for recommending and authorizing credit for 

validated SDRs, associated reply code revision and required use of the reason for reversal 

code in issue reversals (PDC 1160). Although the existing issue reversal process has been in 

place for some time there was very limited MILSTRAP guidance addressing procedures for its

use. The PDC has not been formally staffed, but DLMSO is getting positive feedback on the 

concept. The plan is to leverage the Navy unique issue reversal reason code for additional SDRrelated scenarios and expand it for DoD–wide use. Specific SDR reply codes will also be 

developed to specifically indicate when credit is the result of an issue reversal rather than a 

separate action by the source of supply to process a financial adjustment. The resulting changes

Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 1 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

1. Minutes

§ b.(1)

page 2

14-01 In response to Action Item 5 from 

SPRC 2013-01, in the absence of a 

DLA Distribution proposal for IFR 

processing, Air Force should 

investigate the impact of their 

transition to DLMS (with possible 

termination of CICS interface) and 

continuing need for IFR processing 

using either DAAS or a web service 

from DLA Transaction Services. 

Air Force 1/30/2015 Closed 4/28/15. Air Force. Implementing 

DLMS for the Air Force is several years 

away and will happen as we go through 

our systems changes related to FIAR. 

Even with DLMS, we believe that the 

near real-time communications between 

DSS and D035K are required and would 

not be adequately supported if we 

employed DAAS or DLA Transaction 

Services. See ADC 1070 Analysis

4/29/15 Supply PRC Air Force 

Comments. Air Force is currently setup 

to receive a response within 30 seconds 

of the request using CICS and would 

need DAAS to process the response 

within 30 seconds. The MILSTRIP 

Administrator suggested looking at a 

Web Services via DLA Transaction 

Services as a solution. See Supply PRC 

15-1 Notes for additional discussion and 

related Action Item 46.

2. Minutes

§ b.(2)

pages 2-

3

14-01 Action Item 11 from SPRC 2013-01 

noted that Army will draft a PDC to 

identify process changes (project 

code to be used to indicate passing 

the requisition vice routing based on 

the SoS) required when making the 

switch from A4_ to A0_/DLMS 511R 

when inducting materiel into 

maintenance. 

Army 12/8/2014 Closed 12/11/14. Army will draft a PDC based 

on their input to the task. DLMSO will 

incorporate Component responses to 

the AI task into the draft PDC and 

formally staff with the SPRC.

5/7/15. Army provided draft PDC to 

DLMSO.

3. Minutes

§ b.(2)

pages 2-

3

14-01 Action Item 17 from SPRC 2013-01 

noted that Navy will submit a PDC to 

update the language in MILSTRIP 

2.23 (Requisitioning Reparables for 

Induction to Maintenance) regarding 

the RIC-To for induction to 

maintenance (NRP) (any additional 

Navy 1/30/2015 Open 4/29/15. Navy is working with 

maintenance community to resolve the 

RIC-To language in MILSTRIP C2.23. 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 2 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

changes needed should also be 

identified).

4. Minutes

§ b.(2)

pages 2-

3

14-01 Reference – Action Item 11 from 

SPRC 13-01 to address the three 

project codes related to requisitioning 

reparables for induction to 

maintenance (3AD, 3BB and 3AB). 

3AD and 3BB have documented 

procedures in MILSTRIP C2.23. Two 

specific questions were identified for 

All Services: 

1) Identify which of the noted project 

codes are being used for induction to 

maintenance under DMISA? 

Commercial contracted 

maintenance?

2) Does your Service require DAAS 

to pass the transaction to the RIC-To 

versus routing to the source of supply 

for all three project codes? What is 

the difference between 3AD and 3BB. 

Army 11/24/14 Open 12/11/14. Army will draft a PDC based on their 

input to the task. DLMSO will incorporate 

Component responses to the AI task into the draft 

PDC and formally staff with the SPRC.

4/28/15. Air Force. 

#1 AFSC Response/Update: For D035K project 

code 3BB is used for the induction to maintenance 

under DMISA. See ADC 1070 Analysis. The AF 

does not require project codes for commercial 

contracted maintenance.

#2 AFSC/Response/Update: No, we do not 

require DAAS to pass the transactions. We follow 

the standard rules for routing transactions. The 

difference between the DMISA project codes, 

including 3AD and 3BB are: 

Here is the standard definition of the 3 DMISA 

project codes

- Project Code 3AB

---- Used for materiel shipments to a 

designated repair activity for repair and return to 

an end user directed under existing agreements 

including a DMISA. (DoD) 4000.25-1-M, Military 

Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures, 

Appendix B13)

---- This is used for shipments of assets that 

are to be repaired and subsequently returned to 

the original shipping activity

--- Project Code 3AD

---- Used to identify materiel requisitioned 

for depot repair (overhaul and maintenance) of 

DMISA items. (DoD) 4000.25-1-M, Military 

Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures, 

Appendix B13)

---- This project code is used to requisition 

Service-unique parts used in the repair of a DMISA 

asset

--- Project Code 3BB

---- Used for materiel shipments to a repair 

activity for repair as directed under existing 

agreements including a DMISA

---- This project code is used for shipping 

assets that are to be repaired but do not fall under 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 3 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

the repair and return process

- ADC 1070 Analysis has more information

5/7/15. Army is drafting a PDC to fix the 

project code language in MILSTRIP 

C2.23

5/10/15. Marine Corps:

1) Currently none of the noted project 

codes are being used for induction to 

maintenance under DMISA.

2) The Marine Corps does not require 

DAAS to pass the transaction to the 

RIC-To versus routing to the source of 

supply

DLMSO Response: Marine Corps 

response indicates that the MC does not 

use any of the identified project codes 

for inducting materiel for DMISA 

maintenance. Can you explain how your 

induction procedures work if no project 

code is used? What specific rules apply 

to ensure that the requisition is 

recognized as induction to maintenance 

and to preclude billing. (DLMSO Email 

5/11/15)

5/18/15. See New DLMSO Action Item 

under SPRC 15-1 to review Air Force 

response and review routing logic.

5. Minutes

§ b.(2)

pages 2-

3

14-01 Based on the feedback, DLMSO will 

take appropriate action to update the 

project code table/MILSTRIP 

procedures and provide revised 

guidance that the repair project code 

will take precedence over an 

operational project code when 

inducting materiel into maintenance.) 

The intent is to consolidate the 

Service requirements with the 

DLMSO 1/30/2015 Open 4/29/15. DLMSO needs to review Army 

PDC draft on project codes and Service 

responses to use of project codes 3AB, 

3AD, and 3BB and staff with PRC.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 4 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

DLMSO action item into a single PDC 

for staffing to update and clarify 

procedures for use of the three 

project codes associated with 

maintenance.

6. Minutes

§ b.(3)

page 3

14-01 Navy to provide system change 

request number to document 

requirement to send the shipment 

status for items being picked up by 

DLA Disposition Services. Coordinate 

through the Navy Supply Process 

Review Council 

Navy 1/30/2015 Open 4/29/15. Language of Action Item 

modified during the Supply PRC 15-1 

meeting. 

7. Minutes

§ b.(3)

page 3

14-01 DLMSO will research/revisit the 

policy whether a business rule is 

needed to address SCC H 

(Unserviceable/Condemn) items 

going directly to DLA Disposition 

Services and bypassing the colocated distribution center. The 

review will also address whether use 

of the new DLA Disposition Services 

Turn-In Receipt Acknowledgement 

(TRA) and PMR could help in this 

scenario.

DLMSO 1/30/2015 Closed DLMSO revisited the policy regarding 

Turn-in Receipt Acknowledge (TRA) and 

the exclusion of SSC H. Currently policy 

requires shipment status be provided to 

Disposition Services regardless of the 

SCC. There is no SCC exclusion stated 

in the policy nor ADC 1111.

8. Minutes

§ b.(4)

page 3

14-01 Marine Corps – Provide estimated 

timeline for generating shipment 

status for wholesale level shipments 

out of maintenance at Marine Corps 

Logistics Bases (MCLB) Barstow and 

Albany.

Marine Corps 1/30/2015 Closed 5/10/15. The Marine Corps estimates 

that shipment status for wholesale level 

shipments will begin approximately

1 January 2016 with the implementation 

of DPAS-Warehouse.

9. Minutes

§ b.(5)

page 3

14-01 In response to Action Item 18 from 

SPRC 2013-01, Army to verify 

whether they are generating the 

PMR, as required by policy for Army 

owned items being sent to other 

Service maintenance depots for 

repair. 

Army 1/30/2015 Open 4/29/15. Army reviewed FTA process 

and found problems which may be 

causing PMR to not be sent.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 5 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

10. Minutes

§ b.(6)

page 3

14-01 Army confirm there are no problems 

with LMP processing of SCC K per 

Action Item 22 from SPRC 13-01 and 

submit a PDC if they want to retain 

the stock readiness guidance and 

integrate within MILSTRAP (Army to 

review language for PDC regarding 

requirement to automatically 

condemn “used” material).

Army 1/30/2015 Open

11. Minutes

§ b.(7)

page 3

14-01 Relates to SPRC 13-01 Action Items 

22, 23 and 24. Army evaluate and 

provide a PDC if they want to retain 

the stock readiness guidance and 

integrate within MILSTRAP (Army to 

review language regarding criteria for 

requirement to downgrade materiel to 

SCC F)

Army 1/30/2015 Open

12. Minutes

§ c.(1)

page 4

14-01 Review existing organic maintenance 

transaction flows and identify any 

deviations from the DOD DLMS/ 

MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Organic 

Maintenance Transaction Flowcharts

identified in SPRC 13-01 and linked 

to SPRC 14-01, Agenda Item 2, and 

a timeline to comply.

Army 

Navy

Marine Corps

DLA

12/8/2014 Open 3/25/15. Navy assembled a multifunctional group to document their 

commercial and organic maintenance 

process being used across multiple 

variants the group has been meeting 

weekly since November 2014. Initial 

focus is on commercial maintenance. 

DLMSO and Navy met on 2/25/15 to 

review the initial Navy flow diagram. 

Navy provided an updated flow diagram 

based on the discussion. 

Pending question: Blocks 12 and 13. 

Do we have the correct list of condition 

codes in block 12 to support the use of 

DIC D7L in Block 13? 

D7L -

(Assembly/Disassembly/Reclamation/

Conversion/Modification). There was 

some earlier discussion about the 

misinterpretation of the D7L and Navy 

was going to review.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 6 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

13. Minutes

§ c.(1)

page 4

14-01 Review the DOD DLMS/MILSTRIP/ 

MILSTRAP Organic Maintenance 

transaction flows, in conjunction with 

the Air Force CSRD-2013-06-6095 

processes/flow diagrams, and identify 

any deviations from the DOD 

transaction flows, and timeline to 

comply if deviations are found. 

Air Force 12/8/2014 Open 4/28/15. Air Force. AFSC 

Response/Update: ADC 1070 Analysis 

document shows the deviations. These 

deviations are directly attributable to the 

way the Air Force has established its 

internal communications between depot 

maintenance and the supply system. 

While ongoing IT modernization efforts 

should may eventually address this, it is 

not going to change in the foreseeable 

future as it would require a complete 

overhaul of the way depot supply, depot 

maintenance, and finance interact. This 

system change is as close as we can 

get to MILSTRIP and MILSTRAP. See 

ADC 1070 Analysis. Item remains open 

see Supply PRC 15-1 notes for 

additional discussion. 

14. Minutes

§ c.(2)

page 4

14-01 Research if a fix for the reverse 

usage of D6_ and D7_ transactions is 

included in CSRD-2013-06-6095 and 

coordinate implementation with DLA 

Distribution. (Refer to SPRC 13-01

minutes, page 7, para c.(1) which 

addresses Air Force inappropriate 

use of D7_ as a receipt business 

event, and D6_ as an issue business 

event. SPRC 13-01 minutes are 

linked to SPRC 14-01 Agenda.)

Due Monday December 8, 2014. If 

fix is not included in the CSRD, Air 

Force to provide plan for corrective 

action. 

Air Force

DLA

1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. Air Force, AFSC/ Response/

Update: We believe the action item is 

not as agreed upon during the meeting. 

From the minutes of the meeting: 

Click here for the detailed Air Force 

Response

Additional Action identified in 

SPRC 15-1 (refer to AI #49) .

15. Minutes

§ c.(3)

page 4

14-01 Submit a PDC to document the 

procedures to be used for 

segregation of materiel in storage by 

SCC.

Air Force 1/30/2015 Closed 1/13/15. USAF submitted draft PDC 

1159 for new SCC X. 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 7 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

16. Minutes

§ c.(5)

page 4

14-01 Marine Corps to provide procedural 

guidance to limit use of bearer walkthroughs to emergencies only. 

MROs should be used for 

routine/normal inductions.

Marine Corps 1/30/2015 Open 5/10/15. Marine Corps. Procedural 

guidance is pending. Estimated release 

date is fourth quarter FY 15.

17. Minutes

§ e

page 6

14-01 Army and Navy research missing 

PMRs in response to Automatic 

Return Notification (FTA) 

transactions. This was a specific 

category with a known problem, for 

Army and Navy as a minimum, and 

was documented by the Air force with 

Army and Navy document number 

examples, where the PMR was not 

created in response to a DLMS 

180M/FTA. The raw transaction data 

from DAAS confirming this issue was 

provided to Army and Navy Supply 

PRC representatives.

Army 

Navy

1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15 Air Force. AFSC/LG 

Response/ Update: The AF system 

creates the PMR data from the FTA 

when the FTA is received in a timely 

fashion.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 8 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

18. Minutes

§ e

page 6

14-01 Services to identify system change 

request number and target 

implementation date to address the 

specific action to shift the generation 

of the Shipment Status Material 

Returns Program (DLMS 856R/FTM) 

transaction from the SICA to the 

shipping activity (ADC 1071).

All Services 1/30/2015 Open 3/31/15. DLA – RFC DOF-C15-0024 

was submitted on 3/15/15. Additional 

details will be provided when available 

4/28/15. Air Force AFSC/LG

Response/Update: The shipping activity 

generates the shipment confirmation 

(AR0) transaction and the AF uses that 

to generate the FTM transaction. The 

AF has no plans to change this process 

as the AF wholesale system is 

responsible for intransit tracking of AF 

items.

5/10/15. Marine Corps. Generation of 

MRP shipment status transaction from 

SICA to shipping activity is expected 

with implementation of DPASWarehouse on approximately 1/16/2016.

19. Minutes

§ e

page 6

14-01 Air Force and DLA Distribution 

discontinue use of the Logistics 

Reassignment DLMS 846S/DZC/DZD 

transactions to change ownership of 

materiel outside the Logistics 

Reassignment process.

Air Force

DLA

1/30/2015 Open 3/31/15. DLA – The appropriate 

procedure has been noted.

4/28/15. Air Force. AFSC/LG 

Response – Concur 

20. Minutes

§ e

page 6

14-01 Army to re-evaluate use of RIC AJ2 

as a default owner RIC for 

unauthorized returns of consumable 

items. Air Force to identify a default 

RIC similarly. 

Army 

Air Force

1/30/2015 Open

Closed (AF)

2/16/15. Air Force provided RIC FHZ as 

default owner RIC. DLMSO publishing 

addendum to ADC 1102 citing the 

default USAF RIC.

21. Minutes

§ e

page 3

14-01 ODASD(SCI) to ask the IMMC to 

provide updated wording for 

DLMS/MILSTRAP guidance on who 

gets the receipt when there is no 

PMR for reparable returns.

ODASD(SCI) 1/30/2015 Closed . 4/30/25. New Action Item opened in 

SPRC 15-1 (refer to AI #53)
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 9 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

22. Minutes

§ f

page 7

14-01 Materiel Returns Program (MRP)

 1) Services review their existing 

MRP guidance to ensure it aligns with 

DoDM 4140.01 policy, issue modified 

guidance if needed to align with the 

DoD MRP guidance, and clarify 

internal procedures for the MRP to 

educate retail/tactical level activities 

in an effort to reduce return materiel 

without authorization. Provide 

timeline for corrective action.

 2) Services pursue enforcement of 

MRP procedures as a critical step to 

stopping unauthorized returns of 

materiel to DLA distribution centers

All 1/30/2015 Open 1/16/15. DLA – The DLA Materiel 

Returns Instruction- DLAI 1408 is in the 

process of being updated and is 

currently in coordination. Additionally, 

J34 (Planning) is working on a policy for 

industrial/retail returns. Once the policy 

is completed a modification will be done 

to the Material Returns policy to 

reference the industrial/retail returns.

3/31/15. DLA Update: DLAI 4140.06

Material Returns Program was published 

on 2/9/15. Click on the publication 

number to view the file.

4/28/15. Air Force. AFSC/LG 

Response/ Update: The AF is in 

compliance with DoDM 4140.01; no 

problems have been identified in this 

area.

4/29/15. Feedback from SPRC 15-1

noted the Services need more time to 

complete review of local MRP procedure 

to preclude unauthorized returns.

5/10/15. Marine Corps. In general, 

Marine Corps is in compliance. Only 

intermediate retail activities are 

authorized to execute MRP per Marine 

Corps Orders 4400.150 and 4400.151B. 

GCSS-MC supports this by requiring 

system configuration to be able to 

execute MRP by retail activities. 

Exceptional circumstances of consumerlevel retail activities have been identified 

and are being resolved on a case-bycase basis.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 10 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

23. Minutes

§ f

page 7

14-01 SDR Recoupment Process. DLA and 

DLA Distribution to investigate billing 

the returning activity for reimbursable 

costs associated with unauthorized 

returns based upon the SDR (a 

program change to support SDR 

identification of the returning activity, 

when known, is being implemented in 

November). Refer to DLM 4000.25, 

Vol 2, Chapter 17

DLA 1/30/2015 Open 3/31/15. DLA Distribution is working 

with their Comptroller to determine 

feasibility of capturing cost for 

submission to the DLA Comptroller. 

DLA Distribution and Business 

Development offices are working on a 

new pricing initiative (Market Basket 

Approach), which includes incentive fees 

(no PMR and SDR). Estimated 

implementation of the new MBA is FY17.

24. Minutes

§ f

page 7

14-01 ODASD(SCI) requested clarification 

on the extent of the returned materiel 

volume and dollar value given DLA’s 

input (PMR briefing) that much of the 

materiel is receipted correctly after 

some level of research. 

DLA 1/30/2015 Closed 12/12/14. DLA does not have the ability 

to determine the amount of research 

required for material receipt without 

PMR. Receipt research is not 

documented anywhere. What DLA can 

produce is a report of all receipts 

accomplished without PMR by NIIN, 

location of receipt and receipt value.

Click the following links for the reports: 

USAF, USA, USMC, USN, USCG, GSA, 

and DLA

DLA (Mark Lieberman) provided 

summary that shows the magnitude and 

extent of the steps being taken by DLA 

to identify ownership in the absence of a 

PMR. 

Click here for the complete list of steps.

4/29/15 (SPRC). Consensus was to 

close this item as is. The materiel is 

getting receipted (possibly to SMS as 

the last resort).

25. Minutes

§ f

page 7

14-01 Prepositioned Materiel Receipt 

(PMR). Components review systemic 

generation of PMR transactions, as 

well as timely updates thereto as 

information changes (e.g., revised 

delivery dates, etc.), identify PMR 

gaps and provide DLMSO with their 

Components 12/8/2014

Extended 

to 4/9/2015

Open 3/12/15 email, DLMSO followed up to Supply 

PRC for responses by 4/9/15

3/16/15. DLA J7 reviewed SMS no PMR 

data from DLA Distribution and determined 

the following from their analysis: 

1. New procurement receipts without PMR 

are local credit card purchases and no 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 11 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

proposed corrective action and time 

line, for each of the categories where 

there are gaps. Review must include 

all categories requiring PMR per 

DoDM 4140.01, Vol 5, Enclosure 3, 

page 29, para c.1, procurement 

source (new procurement and returns 

from commercial repair), 

redistribution, requisitioning, returns 

to include; excess, retrograde, and 

directed return of discrepant or 

deficient materiel. 

process exists to produce PMR for this type 

of procurement action.

2. SMS returned material without PMR:

 a. The largest majority off SMS returns 

result from customers returning material to 

Distribution Depots without Supply Center 

approval. Because DLA did not direct the 

material to be returned, EBS will not produce 

PMR.

 b. A very small amount of SMS returns 

are related to PQDR and SDR Exhibits, 

currently there is a workaround using EMALL 

to produce a PMR and a permanent fix will 

be implemented into EBS late April 2015. 

Our expectation is to have all personnel 

trained and full implementation across DLA 

by the end of May 2015.

Currently there is no known issue with EBS 

generating PMR except for PDQRs and SDR 

exhibits.

DLA Distribution will start producing quarterly 

no PMR reports from DSS with the next 

report expected at the end of April 2015. 

DLA will provide the no PMR reports to Mil 

Services and DLA J7 for analysis. To date 

only DLA J7 and Air Force has engaged with 

DLA on the previously provided no PMR 

reports. And subsequent DLA emails 

concerning no PMR.

4/28/15. Air Force AFSC/LG Added 

Reference: DoDM 4140.01, Vol 5, Enclosure 

3, para 8.c Click here for copy of the 

reference.

Air Force AFSC/LG Response/Update: 

D035K generates PMR as required, all 

required data is included.

D035A is currently reviewing systematic 

generation of PMR transactions and have 

identified several issues. This effort is being 

working by AF/A4L.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 12 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

26. Minutes

§ f

page 7

14-01 Deficiency Reporting Systems

 1) Navy – Ask the PDREP program 

manager to investigate enhancements t 

PDREP to support generation of the 

PMR when directing a return to a 

distribution center for an SDR or PQDR

 2) Air Force – Ask JDRS to do the 

same.

 3) Air Force and DLMSO to 

research feasibility and desirability for 

a PMR to be generated as the result 

of a WebSDR directed materiel return 

(AF to submit PDC if this is to be 

pursued).

Navy

Air Force 

DLMSO

1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. Air Force.

#3. AFSC/LG: This is not AFSC/LG’s 

action to update. No AFSC input.

27. Minutes

§ g

page 7

14-01 27. Each Service respond to the 

Document Number Integrity 

Questions in the Additional Supply 

PRC Day 1 Questions. For 

reference, the specific questions are 

shown below.

27a. Is the MILSTRAP guidance 

followed for assignment of the 

Receipt transaction (527R (legacy 

D4_/D6_)) document number suffix? 

Reference – MILSTRAP Appendix 

3.3.3, Appendix 3.2. (This is the 

receipt suffix and should not be 

confused with the requisition 

document number suffix.) 

27b. Is the MILSTRAP guidance 

followed for assignment of the 

Inventory Adjustment transaction 

(947I/legacy DAC)) document 

number/suffix? Reference: 

MILSTRAP Appendix 3.3.3, Appendix 

3.8. (For reclassification of 

previously suspended receipts, enter 

document number under which the 

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

11/24/2-14 Open 4/28/15. Air Force.

#27a. AFSC/LG Added Reference: 

DLM 4000.25-2M, Appendix 3, 

paragraph 3.3.3

“When all data elements, other than 

quantity, are identical and the quantity 

due-in or being adjusted exceeds 99,999 

or 9999M (M-Modifier thousands - and 

residual quantities are for ammunition); 

or when all data elements are the same, 

except the condition of materiel, for 

materiel being received or being

adjusted; assign consecutive suffix 

codes in record position 44 beginning 

with alpha code A in the initial 

transaction; otherwise, leave blank.”

AFSC/LG Response/Update: No, 

MILSTRAP guidance is not followed. 

The Stock Control System has never 

been programmed to operate this way. 

When a receipt is processed by DSS, 

they process it using the correct 

condition code. Each receipt will have a 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 13 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

materiel originally was received.)

27c. When materiel leaves 

maintenance, how is the document 

number assigned for the three 

scenarios: 1) Return to Stock, 2) 

Shipment direct to customer, and 3) 

Condemn – Disposition Services. 

Reference Additional SPRC Day One 

Questions #2

unique operation control number so the 

system can tell the receipts apart. Each 

receipt goes to the financial system and 

the bill is paid as necessary. There is no 

reason to suffix these receipts.

Additionally, when multiple organizations 

are suffixing shipments/receipts it is 

quite possible for the two different 

organizations to assign the same suffix 

resulting in duplicate receipts.

27b. AFSC/LG Added Reference: 

Reference

DLM 4000.25-2M, Appendix 3, 

paragraph 3.3.3

“When all data elements, other than 

quantity, are identical and the quantity 

due-in or being adjusted exceeds 99,999 

or 9999M (M-Modifier thousands - and 

residual quantities are for ammunition); 

or when all data elements are the same, 

except the condition of materiel, for 

materiel being received or being 

adjusted; assign consecutive suffix 

codes in record position 44 beginning 

with alpha code A in the initial 

transaction; otherwise, leave blank.”

AFSC/LG Response/Update: Yes. 

MILSTRAP guidance is followed.

27c. AFSC/LG Response/Update: All 

materiel being returned from depot 

maintenance has a 14-position 

document number. The first 6-positions 

are the Resource Cost Center (RCC). 

Positions 7-10 is the Julian Date. 

Positions 11-14 is a serial number

- There is no differentiation in the three 
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 14 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

categories you cite:

 -- Return to Stock. Assets are placed 

in stock based on the D6 provided by 

DSS to D035K and the subsequent DI 

Code ZCB sent to DSS

 -- Shipment direct to customer. If an 

asset is shipped directly to a customer, 

the shipment is generated by AF 

Wholesale (D035A) or PMR data loaded 

into the system

 -- Condemn – Disposition Services. 

When depot maintenance turns a 

condemned asset into supply and 

D035K generates the A5J to send the 

asset to DLA Disposition Services

5/10/15. Marine Corps. 

27a. The Marine Corps is in 

compliance.

27b. Yes, MILSTRAP guidance is being 

followed.

27c. 1) Return to Stock - Uses the same 

document number as issuing 

transaction.

2) Shipment direct to customer –

Document number is the same as 

issuing transaction. 

3) Condemn –The ICP document 

number is used.

28. Minutes

§ g

page 7

14-01 Army research whether the LMP use 

of invalid document numbers for 

947I/DAC transaction has been 

corrected and the receipt document 

number is being used. Prior to 

meeting, DLMSO sent separate 

emails to Army Supply PRC 

representative for this issue.

Army 11/24/14 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 15 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

29. Minutes

§ g

page 7

14-01 Components to review 527R Receipt 

RCD looping capability to provide 

quantity by supply condition code, in 

a single DLMS Receipt transaction, 

vice creating separate Receipt 

transactions for each SCC as is done 

under the legacy MILSTRAP, to see if 

any Service has implemented the 

capability. If no one has 

implemented this capability, DLMSO 

will develop PDC to remove capability 

from the 527R IC. Related issue for 

PDC, DLMSO to clarify use of the 

separate Receipt Suffix data element 

under DLMS 527R Receipt.

All Components 12/8/2014 Open for Army 

and Navy

1/16/15. DLA – Looping is not being 

used for either EBS or DSS.

4/28/15. Air Force – AFSC/LG 

Response/ Update: The AF has not 

implemented this capability.

5/10/15. Marine Corps. Marine Corps 

has not implemented the capability for 

single receipt for multiple items by 

condition code.

30. Minutes

§ i

page 8

14-01 Navy CAV Program with Air Force 

input, submit a PDC documenting the 

current process flows for CAV, 

identify deviations and gaps from the 

relevant guidance, and identify the 

corrective action and timeline to track 

shipments using contract number as 

primary and the document number as 

secondary control.

Navy 

Air Force

1/26/2015 Open

31. Minutes

§ i

page 8

14-01 Army noted a desire to staff/review 

the commercial flows and use of CAV 

internally and identify any actions. 

Army 1/30/2015 Open

32. Minutes

§ i 

page 8

14-01 Army verify where CAV is being used 

with commercial repair sources. 

Army 1/30/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 16 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

33. Minutes

§ j (1)

page 9

14-01 Ensure the original Day Two PreMeeting questions for Commercial 

Maintenance have complete answers 

including the slide with the iRAPT 

transaction flows.

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

1/26/2014 Open 1/8/15. Navy assembled a multifunctional group to document their 

commercial and organic maintenance 

process being used across multiple 

variants the group has been meeting 

weekly since November 2014. Initial 

focus is on commercial maintenance. 

Navy Supply PRC email on 1/7/15 

provided an initial flow diagram for 

review. 

34. Minutes

§ j (1)

page 9

14-01 Check if they are using MROs for 

other than repair and return.

Marine Corps 1/30/2015 Closed 5/10/15. Marine Corps does use MROs 

for Government Furnished Equipment 

on loan.

35. Minutes

§ j (1)

page 9

Are there scenarios whereby the 

contractor ships without being 

directed by a release order? If yes, 

provide scenario example(s). 

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

1/30/2015 Open 5/10/15. Marine Corps - Yes items at 

commercial repair facility are just being 

shipped back without an MRO.

36. Minutes

§ j (1)

page 9

14-01 Components confirm whether 

commercial maintenance activities 

are generating the 856S/AS_ 

Shipment Status when shipping 

directly to customers?

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

1/30/2015 Open 5/10/15. Marine Corps does not 

receive 856S transactions from 

commercial facilities and GFP loans.

37. Minutes

§ j (2)

page 9

14-01 Air Force – What is the GFM loan 

lease module and what are the 

transactions used?

Air Force 1/30/2015 Closed 4/28/15. Air Force. The GFM and the 

Loan Least Module are 2 separate 

modules. 

GFM Module: 

• Currently used

• Allows for requisitions, receipts, turnins, shipments, etc.

• The Gov Furnished MATERIAL (GFM) 

tracks the material used in the actual 

repair of units (e.g. bonding agent). 

Loan Lease Module:

• Currently not used.

• This is supposed to track by serial 

number
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 17 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

• This deals with Gov Furnished 

PROPERTY (GFP) (e.g. an oven or test 

equip).

• This is limited to requisitions, 

receipts, and shipments back only.

38. Minutes

§ j (2)

page 9

14-01 Air Force discontinue use of the Mseries document number for receipt 

of materiel from disassembled 

(organic repair) items. The Service 

Code M in the DoDAAC is reserved 

for Marine Corps use (Reference 

ADC 388).

Air Force 1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. Air Force. AFSC/LG 

Response/ Update: We do not 

recommend the AF agree to discontinue 

use of the pseudo “M” DODAAC. 

Except for the interface with DSS, these 

transactions are internal to the Air Force 

and do not move outside that realm.

- Using the “M” in the first position of the 

document number is a business rule that 

spans multiple systems. It’s not just 

D035K. Changing all of these systems 

would be a significant undertaking both 

in time and expense. Click here for the 

list provided by Air Force for Major 

systems include the following (this is not 

a complete list). 

4/29/15. DLMSO does not agree with 

Air Force assessment that the M-Series 

DoDAAC transactions are strictly

internal to AF. DLMSO found 

approximately 13,500 transactions with 

invalid M-Series DoDAACs between Air 

Force/Navy and two co-located DSS 

sites at Hill and Robbins

39. Minutes

§ j (2)

page 9

14-01 (Commercial Maintenance) Air Force 

provide plans to address the lack of a 

valid process to add dissembled 

items to property book when parts 

are retained at the contractor’s 

location for future use. Reference –

Day Two Pre-meeting question 

response 3.a.1.

Air Force 1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. Air Force. AFSC/LG 

Response/ Update: We will work with 

the contractor community to ensure they 

know the proper procedures for 

providing D6L receipt transactions for 

disassembled items and that these 

procedures are documented in their 

contracts
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 18 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

40. Minutes

§ j (2)

page 9

14-01 How is your Service accounting for 

material from dissembled items that 

are retained at the contractor’s 

location for future use (e.g. after the 

end item or subassembly is 

condemned). If MILSTRIP/

MILSTRAP transactions are used, 

please specify.

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

1/30/2015 Open 5/10/15. Marine Corps does not allow 

contractors to disassemble and retain 

items.

41. Minutes

§ j (2)

page 9

14-01 Review Services feedback, if 

necessary; draft an update to the 

DLMS procedures to address 

accounting for disassembled items.

DLMSO 2/28/2015 Open 4/28/15. Draft PDC 1171 under 

development, but pending Service 

responses to AI #40. 

Also refer to AI#43. 

42. Minutes

§ k

page 10

14-01 Develop a PDC or an Administrative 

ADC for the 527R Receipt transaction 

to clarify the use of the contract 

number and document number in the 

same transaction as primary and 

secondary control numbers 

depending upon whether the 

transaction identifies a procurement 

source (legacy D4_ functionality) or 

non-procurement source (legacy D6_ 

functionality) receipt. Additionally, 

clearly document how the 527R 

LIN01 codes correspond to 3rd

position of the legacy D4_/D6_ DICs. 

The change will also address 

retaining the legacy D4_ and D6_ 

DICs in 527R LQ segment, as an 

interim requirement to facilitate 

routing under current DLA 

Transaction Services Micro 

Automated Routing System (DMARS) 

constraints. 

DLMSO 1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. Draft PDC 1155 (527R) under 

development. PDC will also incorporate 

AI #29 depending upon Component 

input.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 19 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

43. Minutes

§ k

page 10

14-01 For disassembled items, document 

procedures to support the DODM 

4140.01 policy using a 527R/D4L 

receipt (for GFM) to record the 

materiel on the DOD property 

records. iRAPT can then build the 

GFP shipment information from the 

GFP receipt derived from the D4L.

DLMSO 1/30/2015 Open 4/28/15. To be incorporated in PDC 

1171 being addressed in AI #41.

44. Minutes

§ l

page 11

14-01 Discuss streamlining procedures for 

iRAPT/DLMS harmonization. If the 

approach noted in the meeting 

minutes is adopted, pursue 

ODASD(SCI) policy requirement for 

receipt images. Review ECP to 

ensure required changes are aligned 

to the desired solution.

OSD(DPAP)

ODASD(SCI)

DLMSO

1/30/2015 Open

45. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

pages 

1 and 5 

15-01 Components were requested to 

provide status of all open action items 

from Supply PRC 14-01 by May 18, 

2015. 

Components 5/18/2015 Open

46. Agenda 

Topic 1,

page 1

15-01 The MILSTRIP Administrator 

suggested looking at a Web Services 

via DLA Transaction Services as a 

solution to the original issue noted in 

SPRC 14-1 Action Item 1 and SPRC 

2013-01 Action Item 5.

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open Original Action SPRC 14-1 Action Item 

1. In response to Action Item 5 from 

SPRC 2013-01, in the absence of a DLA 

Distribution proposal for issue from 

receiving (IFR) processing, Air Force 

should investigate the impact of their 

transition to DLMS (with possible 

termination of CICS interface) and 

continuing need for IFR processing 

using either DAAS or a web service from 

DLA Transaction Services.

47. Agenda 

Topic 1,

page 1

15-01 DLMSO review Air Force response to 

SPRC 14-1 Action Item 4 and review 

routing logic provided in their input to 

this action item.

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 20 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

48. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

page 3

15-01 Air Force provide a high level 

summary of where the deviations are 

from the Air Force review of ADC 

1070. Relates to review of the 

Organic Maintenance transaction 

(Reference SPRC 14-1, Action Item 

13 and DSRD-2013-06-6095) 

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open

49. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

page 3 

15-01 In response to the Air Force input to 

SPRC 14-1, Action Item 14, DLA 

Distribution and DLMSO review the 

history on this item from SPRC 13-01 

and confirm if the D6_/D7_ issue is 

supporting shipment in place for the 

Air Force. (Reference SPRC 14-1, 

Action Item 14)

DLA 

Distribution 

DLMSO

6/26/2015 Open

50. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

page 3

15-01 In response to SPRC 14-1, Action 

Item 17, Air Force provide Navy with 

examples of missing PMRs

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open

51. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

page 3

15-01 In response to SPRC 14-1, Action 

Item 18, Air Force send request to 

the other Air Force contacts at Gunter 

for review of this process. 

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open

52. Agenda 

Topic 1, 

page 3

15-01 In response to SPRC 14-1, Action 

Item 19, DLA Distribution confirm that 

the depots are processing ship-inplace MROs for Air Force. (rather 

than DLMS 846S/DZC/DZD). Greg 

Fie DLA Distribution to review the 

process at co-located depots for ship 

to self-transactions. 

(Recommendation is that the PMR 

always be provided pending future 

DSS change to make the PMR 

mandatory for ship-in-place.)

DLA 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 21 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

53. Agenda 

Topics 

1, 2, 5, 

page 4

15-01 1. (DLA) In response to SPRC 14-1, 

Action Item 21, draft PDC with the 

proposed MILSTRAP wording for 

rules to assign ownership in the 

absence of a PMR and to use 

PICA/SICA in FLIS to help identify 

ownership at DLA for NIMSC 5 

materiel. Air Force, requested the 

DLA Distribution Receiving Step 7 

rule (assigns ownership to SMS when 

DLA cannot determine the owner) be 

removed.

2. (Air Force) provide document 

numbers/NSNs for DLA to review 

where DSS assigned ownership 

incorrectly despite the FLIS clearly 

identifying the manager of the item

DLA

Air Force

6/26/2015 Open

54. Agenda 

Topic 3, 

page 5

15-01 DLA (Mr. Mark Lieberman) will 

complete additional analysis for the 

Air Force findings (based on their indepth review of the their systemic 

PMR processes) from the DLA 

perspective and identify findings and 

report back to PRC chair. 

(Supply PRC 14-1 Action Item 25). 

DLA 6/26/2015 Open

55. Agenda 

Topic 5, 

page 6

15-01 Army assign a default RIC for Army 

materiel without a PMR. All other 

Services have provided the default 

RIC. Elevate to ODASD(SCI) if no 

response. DLMSO can support 

staggered implementation of the 

default RIC for Army (depot by depot) 

to assess impact on default RIC.

Army 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 22 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

56. Agenda 

Topic 5, 

page 6

15-01 All Services (except Air Force) 

provide DLA (Mr. Mark Lieberman) 

with a Service POC to work through 

the “No PMR” issues. DLA has

already queried the Service Supply 

PRC contacts and has only received 

a POC from Air Force.

All Services 

(except Air 

Force)

6/26/2015 Open

57. Agenda 

Topic 5, 

page 7

15-01 DLA provide a PDC for the DLA PMR 

purge timeframe/process for 

unmatched PMRs where shipment is 

not received, if DLA is using PMR 

Purge process. There is no 

MILSTRAP/DLMS PMR purge 

process. Based on the current 

answer, it was acknowledged during 

the SPRC 15-01 discussion that this 

action item has possibly morphed into 

an IPT to work this issue in greater 

detail. The answer to this action item 

will determine the direction an IPT 

would focus upon.

Subsequent to SPRC 15-1 meeting, 

DLMSO provided DLA the 2008 

DLA PMR CPI recommendation for 

DLA to submit PDC for a PMR 

Follow-up and/or PMR Reconciliation 

process.

DLA 6/26/2015 Open

58. Agenda 

Topic 5, 

page 6

15-01 DLA Distribution to draft a PDC to 

document handling of unauthorized

returns for obsolete DLA managed 

NIINs. Issues relate to receipt of 

materiel by DSS with no materiel 

master in EBS; consider autodisposal for these items. Address if 

PMR cites the legacy DLA ICP RICs 

(e.g., S9I, S9G), since these RICs 

are not authorized to hold inventory.

DLA 

Distribution

6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 23 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

59. Agenda 

Topic 6, 

page 8

15-01 Air Force lack of visibility for materiel 

at DMISA sites, Navy and Air Force 

will provide each other with specific 

examples to review and then move 

forward with elevating the issues 

through their leadership if necessary.

Navy

Air Force

6/26/2015 Open

60. Agenda 

Topic 6, 

page 8

15-01 ODASD(SCI) to setup a meeting to 

discuss DMISA asset visibility issue 

that Air Force has been raising to 

identify where problems are and 

corrective action to be taken.

OSASD(SCI) 5/14/2015 Closed 5/12/2015. ODASD(SCI) set up a series 

of recurring meetings; first meeting held 

5/20/2015.

61. Agenda 

Topic 6, 

page 8

15-01 Air Force (Mr. Ralph Kinder) provided

a detailed list (problem statement) of 

what sites the Air Force is getting 

receipts from and not getting them 

from. Identify the timeframes when 

these issues arose. Provide the 

Army contacts who he is talking with 

to Ms. Marie Nunn, Army G4 for 

coordination with the Army PRC 

representative, Mr. Oliver Pryor.

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open

62. Agenda 

Topic 7, 

page 9

15-01 Regarding the turn-in of DLA 

managed NSNs of Air Force

ownership at DMISA Sites, the Air 

Force will need to determine what 

they envision the process being –

whether credit is desired. Air Force

will take the agenda item back for 

further review and analysis to sort out 

the issues and recommendations.

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open

63. Agenda 

Topic 9, 

page 9

15-01 DLMSO will provide the transaction 

flows to the DLA PBL Office (Mr. 

Carlo Montemayor) as we understand 

what they should be with regards to 

PBL contracts supporting the typical 

organic DMISA process.

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 24 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

64. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 Provide system change request 

(SCR) number to update SCES to 

ADC 1031 which added the repair 

cost to the DD 1348). 

DSCA 6/26/2015 Open

65. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 DSCA confirm that the Air Force 

Parts and Repair Ordering System 

(PROS) 5 contract incorporates 

requirement to be DLMS compliant.

DSCA 6/26/2015 Open

66. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 DSCA draft a PDC to document the 

SCES interim state logistics Y-Gate 

Routing Process

DSCA 6/26/2015 Open

67. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 DSCA initiate action to notify 

countries to transition to DLMS by 

2019 and monitor transition. This 

applies to those countries with ERP 

systems and those without an ERP 

system. Countries without an ERP 

(including existing DAMES users) will 

need to look at moving to Security 

Cooperation Information Portal 

(SCIP).

DSCA 6/26/2015 Open

68. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 DLMSO offer DLMS training to DSCA 

(Kent Bell) and Navy ILCO folks

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Open

69. Agenda 

Topic 10, 

page 10

15-01 Evaluate DLA Transaction Services' 

Automated Message Exchange 

System (DAMES) in light of the 2019 

DLMS compliant date. Look at 

making DAMES DLMS compliant or 

offer alternate solutions. 

DLA 

Transaction 

Services

6/26/2015 Open 5/1/2015. Comment from DLA 

Transaction Services (Dawn 

Kohlbacher): There are no plans to 

make DAMES and/or DDN DLMS 

Compliant. These are legacy systems 

and it would cost too much to rewrite 

DAMES for this purpose. It would be 

more beneficial for customers to come 

through a more modern system such as 

EDI/GEX which already uses DLMS 

formats. At this time IA has not 

approved FMS customers to use 

EDI/GEX connections.
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 25 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

70. Agenda 

Topic 12, 

page 12

15-01 DLA (Eileen Applegate) research the 

volume and breakout by Service to 

see if there are sufficient occurrences 

today to justify a system change

related to Approved MILSTRIP 

Change Letter (AMCL) 39 which 

addresses verification of excessive 

requisition quantities (quantity on 

requisitions that are outside the 

parameter) 

DLA 6/26/2015 Open

71. Agenda 

Topic 12, 

page 12

15-01 Based on DLA feedback, if frequency 

of occurrence is slow, withdraw 

AMCL 39

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Open

72. Agenda 

Topic 13, 

page 12

15-01 Relating to the DLMS implementation 

status progress, DLA Transaction 

Services look at legacy MILS traffic 

and identify by PBA who is still 

sending MILS transactions.

DLA 

Transaction 

Services

6/26/2015 Open

73. Agenda 

Topic 14 

page 12

15-01 DLA to determine if they still need the

10 day processing time for receipt of 

redistribution orders, vice the seven 

days. The 10 day timeframe was a 

temporary deviation, due to backlog 

processing during the realignment of 

the hub/spoke distribution concept. If 

still needed, DLA submit a PDC to 

change the timeframe since the 

deviation was removed by PDC 1124.

DLA 6/26/2015 Open

74. Agenda 

Topic 14, 

page 12

15-01 ODASD(SCI) to resolve policy conflict 

for receipt posting by Disposition 

Services. DOD 4160.21-M Volume 

says 5-7 days, wherein DODM 

4140.01 says 5 days.

ODASD(SCI) 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 26 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

75. Agenda 

Topic 15, 

page 13

15-01 DLMSO will revisit the draft PDC for 

Supply Condition Code X –

Suspended (Repair Decision 

Delayed) based on the additional 

input that was received at the Supply 

PRC. Rewrite paragraph 4c(1)(a) to 

align with overview of change (i.e., 

beyond practical repair) Delete 

DLMSO Staffing Note now that the 

conflict is resolved.

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Closed 5/12/2015, DLMSO returned revised 

draft PDC 1159 to USAF for review.

76. Agenda 

Topic 16, 

page 13

15-01 Services are asked to report to 

DLMSO when they have 

implemented for FAD I DoDAAC.

All Services 6/26/2015 Open

77. Agenda 

Topic 16, 

page 13

15-01 Services provide implementation 

status of ADC 1009A, with particular 

emphasis on ability to accept fund 

code XP with SC4210 from third party 

billing table, to process mark for 

addressing, and to accept supply and 

shipment status when FEDMALL 

block is lifted at DAAS.

All Services 6/26/2015 Open

78. Agenda 

Topic 17, 

page 14

15-01 For PQDR Data Exchange, Services 

provide their implementation plans

and status for the materiel returns 

program specifically related to 856R

(ADCs 353, 353A and 1071). When 

implementing ADC 1071, it is logical 

to implement ADC 353, 353A, and 

1007/1007A at the same time for 

PQDR.

All Services 6/26/2015 Open

79. Agenda 

Topic 17, 

page 14

15-01 DLA advise if Management Code Q 

for use with the A6_Denial 

transactions is good.

DLA 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 27 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

80. Agenda 

Topic 18, 

page 15

15-01 Components to confirm AMCL 3–

Supply Condition Code (SCC) W –

(Unserviceable (Warranted 

Reparable) was never implemented.

DLMSO to withdraw AMCL 3.

All Components

DLMSO

6/19/2015

6/22/2015

Open

Open

81. Agenda 

Topic 18, 

page 15

15-01 Services to review AMCL 3 –SCC W 

– (Unserviceable (Warranted 

Reparable) and the briefing

presented at the SPRC 15-01 

meeting and advise if DOD could just 

rely on using SCC Q and the 

warranty process currently available 

in PDREP. SCC W will be reserved

until December 31, 2015, while the 

Services take a new look at how 

warranty tracking is being done, in 

case a new SCC W PDC is needed.

All Services 6/26/2015 Open

82. Agenda 

Topic 18, 

page 15

15-01 DLMSO (Ellen Hilert) will ask Becky 

Grant to allocate time during a future

PQDR call to obtain additional 

feedback from the Services. Will hold 

off, at this time, raising this issue 

directly to ODUSD(DPAP) and 

ODASD(SCI).

DLMSO 6/26/2015 Open

83. Agenda 

Topic 19, 

page 16

15-01 Services/DLA/GSA to reply back with 

estimate of when the revised 

procedures for logistics reassignment 

could be implemented. Use ADC 12 

for that review/determination.

DLMSO will reissue ADC 12 as ADC 

1141, written in terms of DLMS rather 

than MILSTRIP and MILSTRAP. 

GSA, DLA, 

Services

DLMSO

6/26/2015

12/15/2015

Open

Open

84. Agenda 

Topic 20, 

page 16

15-01 Navy provide background on how 

issue reversals are used /processed

Navy 6/26/2015 Open
Enclosure – Action Item Tracker for the 29/30 April 2015 Supply PRC (SPRC 15-01)

June 16, 2015

Page 28 of 35

No Minutes

Ref

PRC

Mgt

Ref

Action Item Responsibility Due Date Status Notes

85. Agenda 

Topic 20, 

page 16

15-01 Services provide feedback on the 

draft PDC 1160* linked on the Supply 

PRC 15-1 Agenda. If DLMSO does 

not receive any feedback, the PDC 

will be released to the Supply PRC 

for formal staffing. 

PDC 1160 - Procedures for 

Recommending and Authorizing 

Credit for Validated SDRs, 

Associated Reply Code Revisions 

and Required use of the Reason for 

Reversal Code in Issue Reversals

All Services 5/12/2015 Open

86. Agenda 

Topic 15, 

page 13

15-01 Air Force reply with a corrective 

action plan to route Air Force 

commercial Asset Visibility (CAV) 

transaction through DAAS or 

otherwise ensure appropriate DLMS 

transaction flow.

Air Force 6/26/2015 Open
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 28 of 35

Action Item 24. Minutes, § f, Page 10 ODASD(SCI) requested clarification on the extent of the returned materiel volume and dollar value given DLA’s input (PMR briefing) that much of the materiel is 

receipted correctly after some level of research.

The following summary was provided by DLA (Mark Lieberman) to address the magnitude/extent that DLA goes to identify ownership in the absence of a PMR. 

1. When materiel arrives at a DLA Distribution Center without PMR, DLA Distribution will use the following data sources to create a Materiel Receipt Transaction 

(DIC D4_ or D6_) to establish the item’s NSN, owner, quantity, document number, condition code, and unit of issue:

a. Copies of receipt documentation sent in advance, physically attached to the shipment, or obtained through receiving systems (WAWF) 

b. Authorized procurement delivery documents and vendor packing lists

c. Transportation and fiscal records

d. Container markings

e. Contract information available via the Electronic Document Access (EDA) Website reference archive

f. Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) or WebFLIS data

g. Advice provided by the owner, the shipper, or the U.S. Customs Inspector's Office upon request of the receiving activity if receipt documentation cannot 

otherwise be developed

2. For Audit, specifically Rights Substantive Testing, the receiving DLA Distribution Center will complete the receipt using the following data points from the PMR 

transactions or receiving documents:

a. NSN 

b. Owner 

c. Quantity 

d. Document number 

e. Condition code 

f. Unit of issue

g. Correct receiving/storage location

3. To support Audit Readiness Rights Substantive Testing, if materiel is shipped without PMR and receiving documentation is missing/inaccurate/incomplete, in 

order to complete the receipt, all receiving data points listed above must be established by the receiving DLA Distribution Center.

4. When the materiel owner is unidentifiable, the receiving DLA Distribution Center will use the pre-designated Routing Identifier Codes (RIC) established by each 

service. The Navy and Marines have established pre-designated RICs to be used when owner is unidentified (DLM ADC 1102):

a. Army: _ _ _

b. Air Force: _ _ _

c. Navy: NRP

d. Marines: MPB

e. DLA: SMS

f. GSA: GSA (GSA non-procurement receipts should be assigned to SMS per the DLM 4000.25 Vol 2, Chapter 13)

g. Coast Guard: _ _ _

5. If no receiving data sources are available or when service affiliation cannot be determined, the receiving DLA Distribution Center will establish the owner/predesignated Military Service RIC by using the following, in order of priority:
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 29 of 35

a. The Service associated with the Shipper’s DoDAAC

b. The first letter of the Document number 

c. The co-located Military Service’s pre-designated RIC

d. WebFLIS Source of Supply (SOS)/Manager

e. Owner already established in DSS for that same NSN

f. Assign to SMS account if no other indication of owner

Action Item 14. Minutes, § c. (2), Page 6

AFSC/Response/Update: We believe the action item is not as agreed upon during the meeting. From the minutes of the meeting: 

“The Air Force noted several areas where their process differed. Their D035K application controls issues to maintenance. D035K uses a pseudo RIC to segregate DMISA Depot 

Level Reparables (DLR) by Service. The Air Force provided an overview of their process that uses Ownership/Purpose (0/P) codes and use of D6_ (Receipt) and D7_ (Issue) 

transaction. Unfortunately, during the software development in support of DLA assuming responsibility for Service-owned depots, the D6 became associated with an issue 

business event, while the D7 became associated to a receipt business event. Air Force expects DSS to create a D6_ Receipt identifying an issue event in response to an AS_ from 

D035K, to "wash" the asset from the owner account to the Air Force account. Air Force then uses pseudo RJCs in D035K and DSS to segregate storage for reparables by principal 

account. Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA) noted that DSS does not use ownership or purpose code and does not store materiel by 0/P code. Mr. Phoel (Army/LMP) noted that LMP 

recognizes and stores by the 0/P Code. Mr. Ziegler noted that much of the Air Force transactions movement is happening within the D035K application and not DSS. Ms. Hilert 

noted that the transaction process used by the Air Force seems to blur owner visibility of the item because the owner is not getting an actual transaction that the item has physically 

moved; it is put into the AF account, but remains at the DLA storage activity. Additionally, the owner appears to be getting a DAC to change from SCC F to M before receipt by 

the maintenance depot. From the discussion, Ms. Hilert indicated that it seems the actual receipt from the maintenance depot is missing. The maintenance depot should provide a 

D6 Receipt in SCC F before the SCC change to M. The Air Force participants agreed to provide flow charts and descriptions of their current process for a closer review.”

CSRD 2013-06-6095 does not “fix” the reverse usage of D6_ and D7_. This response provides the information actually requested. From the 

minutes: “Air Force expects DSS to create a D6_ Receipt identifying an issue event in response to an AS_ from D035K, to "wash" the asset 

from the owner account to the Air Force account.”

- The ship-to-self (STS) process has never used the ASx transaction to trigger a D6. This is a basic misunderstanding of the ship-to-self process

- The STS process does not work with the DMISA pseudo-RIC accounts. See action item “N”

- Shown below are two types of STS transactions

-- Processing the shipment triggers the receipt into the other owner’s account without a loss of visibility or accountability

-- Figure 1 shows D035K initiating an STS process that causes DSS to decrement the asset balance in the Air Force account and put the asset 

balance into the new owner account. The receipt of that asset is reported to the new owner using a D6 transaction
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 30 of 35

Figure 1. Ship To Self - D035K Initiated

-- Figure 2 shows an asset owner initiating an STS process that causes DSS to decrement the asset balance in their account and put the asset 

balance into the D035K account. The receipt of that asset is reported to D035K using a D6 transaction
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 31 of 35

Figure 2. Ship-To-Self - Other Owner Initiated

- The STS process in Figure 3 is the one used to implement the procedures in DLM 4000.25-2M, Chapter 4, Paragraph C4.3.5

-- “C4.3.5...Because the Military Service sites shall no longer retain retail stock balances under these programs, DLA shall assume 

ownership of all materials regardless of asset position. Upon notification of receipt by the storage activity by a Defense Logistics 

Management System (DLMS) 527R (D6A), the Military Service activity shall determine if there is a need for the material by another 

maintenance user (backorder). If so, an issue document shall be forwarded to the storage activity for action. If not, a materiel release order 

shall be initiated, directing shipment-in-place (citing the ship-to/supplemental address of the storage activity), authorizing a change of 
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 32 of 35

ownership to DLA. The receipt of the returned materiel from the Military Service ownership to DLA shall be accomplished with a receipt 

(DIC D6B).”

Figure 3. Ship-To-Self - Practical Application

Ms. Hilert noted that the transaction process used by the Air Force seems to blur owner visibility of the item because the owner is not getting an 

actual transaction that the item has physically moved; it is put into the AF account, but remains at the DLA storage activity

The STS process has never been used by the Air Force to manage DMISA assets. The process does not work with DMISA assets under the current pseudo-RIC. See ADC 1070 

Analysis.

Status Recommendation: Close
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 33 of 35

Action Item 25. Minutes, § f. Page 11

AFSC/LG Added Reference: 

- DoDM 4140.01, Vol 5, Enclosure 3, para 8.c

c. For due-in records, receiving activities will:

(1) Record all anticipated receipts of materiel from any source (i.e., procurement, redistribution, requisitioning, and returns to include excess, 

retrograde, and directed return of discrepant or deficient materiel) as materiel due-in.

(a) If the source of the materiel due-in is a contractor, the materiel due-in should identify if destination acceptance is required.

(b) Classify accounting for progress payments made to contractors as prepaid assets, rather than as inventory consistent with DoD 

inventory valuation policy.

(2) Provide a current record of all anticipated materiel receipts to receiving storage activities through the use of the appropriate prepositioned 

materiel receipt transactions as defined by Reference (q).

(a) Provide a shipment status or notice containing the passive RFID tag identification and associated shipment information in

advance to receiving storage activities.

(b) Establish suspense procedures based upon the initial notification of shipment to monitor materiel receipt and ensure proper 

accountability of in-transit assets

AFSC/LG Response/Update: D035K generates PMR as required, all required data is included.

D035A is currently reviewing systematic generation of PMR transactions and have identified several issues. This effort is being working by AF/A4L
Detail Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of May 26, 2015

Page 34 of 35

Action Item 38. Minutes, § j. (2) Page 17

AFSC/LG Response/Update: We do not recommend the AF agree to discontinue use of the pseudo “M” DODAAC. Except for the interface with

DSS, these transactions are internal to the Air Force and do not move outside that realm.

- Using the “M” in the first position of the document number is a business rule that spans multiple systems. It’s not just D035K. Changing all of 

these systems would be a significant undertaking both in time and expense. Major systems include the following (this is not a complete list)

-- Stock Control System

--- Item Manager Wholesale Requisition Process (IMWRP) (D035A)

--- Wholesale Management and Efficiency Reports (WMER) (D035B)

--- Reportable Asset Management Process (RAMP) (D035C)

--- Financial Inventory Accounting and Billing System (FIABS) (D035J)

--- Wholesale And Retail Receiving And Shipping (WARRS) (D035K)

--- Inventory & Storage Process (INSTOR) (D035L)

-- Other Supply Systems

--- Center of Parts Activity (D050)

--- Distribution Standard System

--- Execution And Prioritization Of Repairs Support System (EXPRESS) (D087X)

-- Maintenance Systems

--- Automated Bill of Materiel

--- Defense Industrial Financial Management System

--- Maintenance Data Depot (Q302)

--- Naval Air Industrial Material Management System (NIMMS)

--- Management of Items Subject to Repair (MISTR) Requirements Scheduling And Analysis System (G019C)

--- Inventory Tracking System (ITS)

--- Materiel Processing System (MPS)