Attachment 1

DLMSO July 6, 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply 

Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting 01-2, 

June 12-14, 2001

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office 

(DLMSO) hosted the subject meeting at the Headquarters Complex, Ft. 

Belvoir, VA. Specific discussion topics are noted below. A list of 

attendees is shown at Enclosure 1. 

 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert and Ms. Mary 

Jane Johnson, Supply PRC (SPRC) Co-Chairs, and Ms. Vermella Savage, 

MILSTRIP Administrator, facilitated discussion:

Review of Meeting Topics:

 

a. DLSS/DLMS Change Evaluation, Status Review, and Issue 

Resolution. During this discussion, DLMSO urged the SPRC 

representatives to communicate with their system modernization 

offices to assure that their modernization personnel are aware of 

the approved, but unimplemented, DLSS/DLMS changes outstanding. 

Without collaborative effort between the PRC representatives and 

system modernization offices, these changes could be overlooked 

during Component system modernization efforts. The following 

specific changes were discussed:

(1) Revised Request for Implementation Dated (RFID) 

AMCL 9, Processing Materiel Receipts Not Due for GSA Managed Items. 

DISCUSSION: AMCL 9 remains a valid requirement which can be 

implemented on a staggered basis. Each Component should implement 

this change as soon as they are able. The responses to the RFID to 

date indicate that Air Force can implement at any time, and Army can 

implement in December 2004. ACTIONS: Air Force will verify their 

implementation date. Request Navy, Marine Corps, and DLA respond to 

the RFID. DLMSO will release the approved change letter with the 

earliest implementation date provided. DLMSO will publish AMCL 9 in 

MILSTRAP and DLMS, with a footnote indicating the staggered Component 

implementation dates.
2

(2) Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 9A, Validation of 

F/AD I Activities; ADC 9B, Automatic Downgrading Based upon Validation 

of F/AD; and Implementation Issues. BACKGROUND: The original change 

established an automated process to validate F/AD I requisitions using 

a table of authorized activity DoDAACs maintained at DAASC. Beginning 

in September 1998, requisitions reflecting unauthorized use of 

associated priority designators (PDs) have been output to a report for 

Component review. In September 2000, ADC 9B activated automatic 

downgrading to include all improper PD 04 and 11 requisitions and 

Security Assistance (SA) PD 01s. DISCUSSION: Part I of the report 

has been revised to reflect the number of downgraded requisitions. 

Other anticipated report revisions are in work and will be available 

for review during the next quarterly meeting. (Refer to 01-2 minutes 

for details.) Components reported continued monitoring of PD 01 

requisitions. F/AD I counts have improved, although the May report 

reflected an increase in the overall level of abuse. The Navy 

anticipates a significant improvement with program corrections at 

Puget Sound. ACTION: DLMSO will revise MILSTRIP to post modified 

report formats and refined selection criteria when implemented. 

Components will continue efforts to identify instances of high volume 

abuse and seek corrective action.

(3) Joint AMCLs 11 (MILSTRAP) & 15 (MILSTRIP), 

Revised Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Procedures. 

BACKGROUND: ADUSD(L)MDM directed and funded implementation of AMCLs 

11 and 15 in 1996-1997. Components accepted the funding and 

implemented on a staggered basis from 1997 into early 1999, 

subsequently reporting full implementation. Numerous significant 

implementation issues have since been identified. (Refer to the 

minutes of SPRC meeting 01-1 for detailed documentation of 

implementation issues (b) through (g) below.) 

 (a) Army implementation of AMCL 15 (MILSTRIP). 

Army's lack of Document Identifier (DI) Code ASH, Pseudo Shipment 

Status transactions, had been identified as a Security Assistance 

concern in 1999. DLMSO believed the concern was limited to Security 

Assistance, however review of DAASC records in May 2001 revealed a 

complete absence of DI Code ASH transactions for Army. This 

information implies that Army may not have implemented the AMCL 15 

procedures. ACTION: Army will investigate and provide status of 

corrective action.

 (b) MRA Submission Rate Concerns. 

1 Navy Overall MRA Submission Rates. 

Navy investigated their 20-27% submission rate and discovered that 

Navy's retail system (UADPS) was not always sending DI Code DRA 

transactions to the correct RIC, and DAASC filters out any RICs not 

beginning with an "N" for a Navy ICP. A UADPS change to correct the 

routing problem is estimated for completion in October 2001. 

ACTION: Navy is reviewing several other Navy Systems 

(LCAV/SUADPS/RSUPPLY)to determine if they have similar problems.
3

2 Medical and Clothing & Textile 

Systems. The DLA statistics reviewed at SPRC meeting 01-1 indicated 

that the MRA process was not effectively implemented by Service 

Medical systems and, particularly for Navy and Marine Corps, by the 

Clothing & Textile systems. To assist in their investigation of 

this issue, Navy and Marine Corps asked that DLA provide specific 

examples by document number, for Medical and Clothing & Textile 

items which DLA shipped to their Service, for which no MRA was 

received. This information would also be of interest to Army and 

Air Force. ACTION: Request Service and DLA PRC representatives 

collaborate and exchange information as needed to advance the 

investigation of implementation of MRA procedures in Medical and 

Clothing & Textile systems. Services should continue to 

investigate, and provide their results and a plan of corrective 

action at SPRC meeting 01-3. 

(c) DI Code D6S Transactions: BACKGROUND: 

To accommodate staggered implementation from 1997-1999, DAASC 

provided a temporary conversion of DI Code D6S to DI Code DRA. This 

interim procedure should no longer be in effect as it would not be 

required with full implementation of the MRA procedures. However 

DAASC queries have revealed continued generation of D6S 

transactions: 

Service Number of D6S Transactions 

FEB 2001 APR 2001 May 2001

Navy 24,103 12,101 12,651

Air Force 2,406 2,503 2,248

Army 1,512 633 1,122

Marine Corps 83 30 100

DISCUSSION: Army determined that 85-90% of their D6S transactions 

were generated by National Guard units and have initiated corrective 

action. Marine Corps initiated corrective action with involved 

activities, for their very limited generation of D6S transactions. 

Air Force D6S generation appears limited to their legacy medical 

system (MEDLOG), which will continue to generate DI Code D6S until 

replaced by the DMLSS which incorporates AMCL 11/15 procedures. 

DMLSS fielding began in April 2001 and will continue on a staggered 

basis for the next 3-4 years. Navy, which has the highest incidence 

of DI Code D6S generation, determined that the vast majority are 

generated by their Construction Battalions and Navy Shipyards. Navy 

reports that Construction Battalions project a system correction by 

July 30, 2001. The Shipyard System, MAT01, has been notified but 

has not yet submitted a projected completion date. ACTION: Services 

should report on the progress of their corrective actions at SPRC 

meeting 01-3. DLMSO NOTE: It has been suggested to DLMSO that once 

the major offenders have been notified and system corrections made, 

DAASC begin rejecting DI Code D6S transactions rather than convert 

to DI Code DRA. Request Components and DAAASC consider this 
4

alternative and how/when it could best be implemented, for 

discussion at SPRC meeting 01-3. 

(d) Quantity Problems. ARMY: Army 

programmed their system to cite the quantity received rather than 

the missing quantity, when less than the shipped quantity is 

received. This approach conflicts with approved procedures. Army 

indicated a system change to correct the problem has been written, 

however due to a moratorium on changes to the Standard Army Retail 

Supply System (SARSS), the requirement must be elevated within Army. 

An Army meeting was scheduled for June 18, 2001 to address this and 

other issues. AIR FORCE: Air Force continues to pursue a 

correction to the problem of reporting MRAs showing a discrepancy 

indicator code F, indicating a quantity missing, for materiel that 

has in fact not yet been shipped. ACTION: Army and Air Force to 

provide status update of their corrective action as soon as 

possible, but no later than SPRC meeting 01-3. 

(e) Security Assistance (SA) Concerns. DLMSO 

issued a memorandum, April 11, 2001, formally tasking the Services 

to respond to DSADC questions/concerns. To date only Navy has 

formally responded. ACTION: Request Army, Air Force, and Marine 

Corps provide formal responses to the April 11, 2001 memorandum 

by July 30, 2001. 

(f) Partial and Split Shipments. BACKGROUND: 

At SPRC meeting 01-1, the PRC was tasked to provide by May 15, 2001, 

detailed documentation on how their retail receipt and MRA 

processes/systems react to the partial and split shipment coding in 

the TCN field; documentation on the full impact of partial and split 

coding on SDR generation; and identification of what, if any, entry 

is currently being made in rp 7 of the DI Code DRA/DRB, to include 

the associated programming logic and procedural guidance. 

DISCUSSION: The use of partial shipments by the Distribution 

Standard System (DSS) is an authorized process. The increased use 

of partial shipments to expedite shipments, saving time that would 

have been required to consolidate material for a single shipment,

may have had unanticipated and far-reaching impact in other areas of 

DoD logistic processes which do not appear to have systematic 

provisions for processing the partial shipment coding contained in 

the TCN field. Areas of concern include, but may not be limited to, 

retail receipt processing, MRA processing, and SDR generation. To 

date only Navy has formally provided the requested information on 

systematic/procedural processing of partial and split shipment

coding in the TCN field. Army indicated they would be able to 

respond after their internal June 18, 2001 meeting. ACTION: In 

light of the widespread use of partial shipments by DSS, all 

Components should be looking at the impact of partial shipments on 

their systems and procedures. Further, request that by July 30, 

2001, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps provide documentation on 

their procedures for processing partial and split shipment coding 

contained in the TCN field in their retail receipt, MRA, and SDR 
5

processing; and the impact if procedures/systems do not consider 

this data. (See minutes of SPRC meeting 01-1 for more detailed 

documentation of the issue/concerns.) DLMSO will identify to Navy 

those areas for which additional clarification is required for the 

information Navy provided. DLA will continue efforts to verify the 

magnitude of the depot's use of partial shipments, and ascertain the 

extent to which transportation splits shipments.

(g) Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDRs) Based 

upon Army “Pseudo” Receipts (Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) 

with Discrepancy Code F). BACKGROUND: Refer to 01-1 minutes for 

details. ACTION: No resolution. This discussion will be resumed at 

the SPRC 01-3 meeting.

(4) RFID Joint AMCLs 12 (MILSTRAP) and 43 

(MILSTRIP), Maintaining Accountability During Maintenance Actions. 

BACKGROUND: The RFID for Joint AMCLs 12 and 43 was released March 

29, 2001. Air Force and Marine Corps response to the RFID 

indicated the change was implemented, while Army indicated the 

MILSTRAP portion was implemented. Navy and DLA had not responded 

DISCUSSION: Joint AMCLs 12 and 43 were developed to provide more 

accurate DoD accountability for items undergoing maintenance, in 

response to DoDIG and GAO audit reports identifying weaknesses in 

this area. In light of the importance of this change, the GAO and 

DoDIG interest, and the positive implementation response previously 

provided by Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, DLMSO requested that 

DLA and Navy provide their response to the RFID in anticipation that 

the procedures can be implemented and published in the near term. 

DLA indicated that they have been working with Navy on 

implementation of AMCL 12/43 procedures between Navy and the DLA 

depot system. DLA agreed to provide Navy with their Navy point of 

contact. ACTION: Request DLA and Navy provide their AMCL 12/43 

implementation dates by August 15, 2001. Request Army, Air Force, 

and Marine Corps verify or update the implementation dates 

previously provided.

(5) RFID MILSTRAP AMCL 14, Revised Asset Status 

Reporting and Logistics Asset Support Estimate (LASE) Procedures for 

Total Asset Visibility (TAV). BACKGROUND: AMCL 14 was initially 

published as an approved change on June 23, 1994, for implementation 

by the Joint Logistics System Center (JLSC). Due to the demise of 

the JLSC, the RFID for AMCL 14 was released December 2, 1997. The 

majority of AMCL 14 has been implemented by the Services, by 

agreement with DLA, as documented in MILSTRAP Interim Change 94-1, 

and formally published in MILSTRAP by Change Number 4, April 15, 

1996. Air Force may not have been part of the initial 

implementation, however Air Force response to the RFID provided a 

June 2000 implementation date. DISCUSSION: The portion of AMCL 14 

not formally published/implemented relates to removing the 

transaction reporting procedures from MILSTRAP Chapter 8; and an 

administrative change to MILSTRAP allowing use of Logistics Asset 

Support Estimate (LASE) procedures by authorized below wholesale 
6

activities. Removal of the transaction reporting section of chapter 

8 was done in response to Component position that such procedures 

were never implemented, and are not needed. If that is the case, 

there is no system impact to removing the transaction reporting 

procedures, allowing immediate publication of that portion of AMCL 

14 in MILSTRAP. ACTION: Request Components verify by July 16, 

2001, that the transaction reporting procedures of MILSTRAP chapter 

8, paragraph C.9, are not needed and can be removed as documented in 

AMCL 14. DLMSO NOTE SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING: Request Air Force 

also verify, by July 16, whether the MILSTRAP Appendix B10 Asset 

Status Reporting Codes N and P, and the associated AMCL 14, chapter 

8 procedures have been implemented. 

(6) Revised RFID ADC 14, New Supply Condition Code 

(SCC) V, Unserviceable (Waste, Military Munitions). BACKGROUND: 

ADC 14 was issued July 27, 2000, with a December 2004 joint 

implementation date. This date was selected to accommodate the 

outside Component implementation date, which was provided by Army. 

DISCUSSION: In May 2001, Army advised DLMSO that they could 

implement ADC 14 immediately, and asked if joint implementation 

earlier than 2004 was possible. DLMSO agreed to reissue the RFID as 

this change is needed in DoD to support the Environmental Protection 

Agency Military Munitions Rule, which was effective August 12, 1997. 

ACTION: DLMSO will release a Request for a REVISED Implementation 

Date for ADC 14.

(7) PDC 29, Requisition PD Validation. BACKGROUND: 

This change provided specific instructions for identification of the 

F/AD I activities within the requisition. It has been on hold as a 

result of Component nonconcurrence due to inability to procedurally 

ensure the inclusion of the applicable DoDAAC in the requisition. 

DISCUSSION: It was agreed that DLMSO should withdraw the proposed 

change and rework for implementation under the DLMS. ACTION: DLMSO 

will draft for Component review. 

(8) PDC 39, Use of Both Ownership Code and Purpose 

Code. BACKGROUND: PDC 39 proposed use of both ownership code and 

purpose code in DLMS, for ammunition, and asked if the concept 

should be expanded beyond ammunition. DISCUSSION: During the mixed 

DLSS/DLMS environment, only one code, either ownership or purpose, 

can be translated back to a DLSS transaction due to the constraints 

of the 80 record position DLSS formats. The change will be approved 

for ammunition only at this time. However the use of both codes can 

be expanded beyond ammunition when additional requirements are 

identified. ACTION: DLMSO will release an approved DLMS change and 

publish the requirement in the appropriate DLMS supplements, noting 

the limitation of using both codes for ammunition while in a mixed 

DLSS/DLMS environment. No RFID is required.

(9) RFID 39, Verification of Excessive Quantity 

Requisitions. BACKGROUND: The original MILSTRIP change was 

restaffed and approved for DLMS implementation only. Subsequently, 
7

DSCA requested that DLMSO authorize use the DLSS transaction formats 

for exchange with foreign customers. DISCUSSION: The DSCA request 

conflicts with DoDI 8190.1 policy on use of approved methods of 

electronic logistics information exchange. Rather than authorize a 

new implementation under the DLSS, DLMSO confirmed that DSCA may 

request translation services from DAASC to facilitate non-ANSI ASC 

X12 interfaces with foreign customers as needed. ACTION: The 

approved change will be released for DLMS implementation. 

Components will coordinate implementation with DLMSO when modernized 

systems are available to support the new requirement.

(10) PDC 41, Clarification of Estimated Delivery 

Date (EDD) use in the 527D IC. BACKGROUND: PDC 41 was developed to 

clarify a conflict in the 527D, regarding when the EDD was required. 

DISCUSSION: DLMSO will revise the 527D to provide for use of the 

EDD consistent with its present use in related MILSTRAP 

transactions. ACTION: DLMSO will issue an approved DLMA Change. 

No RFID is required for this clarification of the DLMS 527D.

(11) RFID 41, DAAS Reject of Requisitions With 

Invalid Ship-to and Mail-to Address in MAPAD. BACKGROUND: This 

change originally scheduled for implementation in 1994, authorizes 

the DAAS to reject SA transactions that do not have a valid ship-to 

address. DISCUSSION: It was the consensus that this change should 

be implemented. DAASC indicated they could implement within 30 days 

of release. DSCA will research ILCO capacity to respond to Status 

Code DP and review specific wording shown in the RFID rationale 

paragraph (2). ACTION: DSCA will make appropriate recommendations. 

DLMSO will draft for Component review. 

(12) RFID 44, Recurring/Nonrecurring Demand Data.

BACKGROUND: This change originally scheduled for implementation in 

1995, expands the definition of Demand Code O, requires adjustment 

of demand data when a cancellation is processed, and revises the 

format of the referral order. DISCUSSION: The consensus was that 

this change could be approved with portions deferred for DLMS 

implementation. DLMSO will draft for Component review. 

(13) Draft ADC 44 Two-Dimensional Bar Symbol on 

Issue Release/Receipt Document (IRRD)(DD Form 1348-1A) (Staffed as 

PDC 61). BACKGROUND: This change added to the IRRD a 2-D PDF 417 

symbol (previously referred to as a bar code) encompassing data 

elements currently expressed in a linear bar code. Analysis and 

subsequent discussion resulted in clarification of numerous issues 

and consensus to proceed. DISCUSSION: Despite efforts to resolve, 

there remain several additional detail data issues to resolve prior 

to release of the approved change. DLA indicated that a Request for 

Implementation Date (RFID) is required, as their design center could 

not comply with our request for an implementation date based on the 

PDC staffing. Remaining data issues include: 

• Distribution Code. Does not reflect MILSTRIP standard three-
8

position field.

• Document number. Includes optional suffix code within Document 

number field.

• National Stock Number. Includes optional 2 characters for 

special coding after NSN. 

• Unit Price. Needs explanatory note and correction of sample 

data. Size of field needs to be researched. Current bar code 

problem exists where actual price may exceed available field 

size.

ACTION: DLMSO will work with the USMC and the DoD AIT Committee to 

resolve. DLA will research the UP issue. A revised draft will be 

provided prior to formal staffing.

(14) PDC 62, Proposed Change to DAASC Mailing 

Process. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this change is to eliminate 

DAASC mailing of transactions related to MILSTRIP and MILSBILLS 

processes. DISCUSSION: DAASC continues to work with Components to 

identify customers receiving mailed output and implement replacement 

communications methods. It was the consensus that DLMSO should 

prepare an approved change to eliminate all mailed supply status and 

to insure that new users employ electronic interfaces. ACTION: 

DLMSO will draft for Component comments. 

(15) Draft PDC 65, Enhanced Edits for the Required 

Delivery Date (RDD) Field in Requisitions. BACKGROUND: Per SPRC 

00-3 agreement, and in response to OIG Report D-2000-113, Required 

Delivery Dates in Requisitions for Secondary Items of Supply 

Inventory, DLMSO prepared a draft change proposal to address 

specific RDD usage problems that could be resolved with enhanced 

DAASC validation. The SPRC continued to refine the requirement 

during the SPRC 01-1 meeting and electronically thereafter. 

DISCUSSION: The revised change was reviewed and comments were 

provided for correction/further enhancement. DLA advised that they 

have deviated slightly from MILSTRIP guidance in determining demand 

sequence so that the requisition document number date precedes the 

date of the RDD (when earlier than the computed standard delivery). 

A question was raised concerning whether it is proper to retain 

guidance allowing additional time for review of manually submitted 

requisitions (1 day for PDs 01-08 and 3 days for PDs 09-15). This 

is not included in the current UMMIPS standard, but is reflected in 

the current MILSTRIP. ACTION: Components will investigate 

programmed demand sequence for compliance with MILSTRIP. DLMSO will 

update and coordinate a draft proposal prior to official staffing. 

DLMSO will research the UMMIPS question and initiate changes to DoD 

4140.1-R required to deconflict the guidance.

b. Component Unique DLMS Requirements. BACKGROUND: By 

request of the Navy, the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) 

prepared a report documenting Component uniques associated with 

NAVSUP requirements. DLMSO later commissioned LMI to prepare 

similar reports and draft DLMS change proposals on behalf of the 
9

Army and Air Force. The Army report is complete and has been 

provided to the Army Supply PRC representative. The Air Force study 

is currently underway. DISCUSSION: DLA questioned whether a similar 

study was to be conducted for DLA uniques. ACTION: Subsequent to 

the meeting it was determined that DLA transactions were not 

included in the DLMSO task order. Due to funding constraints, no 

provisions for such a study are envisioned. DLA may pursue directly 

with LMI. 

c. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Integrated Product 

Team (IPT). BACKGROUND: The Director, Logistics Systems 

Modernization, requested that the existing DRID 48/Commercial 

Standards EDI IPT be expanded to exploit the full potential of the 

community services concept as it relates to enterprise resource 

planning (ERP)/modernization initiatives. DISCUSSION: DLMSO 

provided an update brief on the EDI IPT-Expanded with emphasis on 

the four subgroups tasked with developing a plan to meet the 

Director’s goal. These groups are: logistics information exchange, 

business rules, data standards, and reference data repositories. 

Briefing slides are available on the Supply PRC Committee web page 

(linked to the 01-2 meeting agenda). An EDI IPT-Expanded meeting was 

held on June 20, 2001 (refer to: www.dla.mil/j-6/logedi/ERP_IPT/default.htm. ACTION: The SPRC will continue to address 

action items delineated in the Adoption of Commercial Standards 

Corporate Plan.

d. Distribution Standard System (DSS) Interface Issues. 

The SPRC joined a meeting that was convened June 13, 2001, to discuss 

concerns over enterprise resource planning (ERP) interface 

requirements with DSS. Specific ERP efforts represented were: DLA’s 

Business Systems Modernization (BSM), Navy’s Aviation Supply 

Chain/Maintenance Management (SMART), Army’s Wholesale Logistics 

Modernization Program (WLMP) and Army medical (USAMMA). The meeting 

highlighted the importance of establishing ongoing communication 

between the Component PRC representatives and the Component system 

modernization offices. Collaborative efforts are required to assure 

that the requirements of the logistics system modernization efforts 

(not just ERPs), which impact DLMS capability/business rules, are 

identified through the DLMS change process. ACTION: Refer to DSS 

interface meeting minutes available via hyperlink from the SPRC 

agenda.

e. Delayed Implementation Dates. BACKGROUND: The recent 

republication of MILSTRIP perpetuated outdated information in 

Appendix 4, which cites authorized exceptions and delayed 

implementation dates. ACTION: The Committee was tasked with 

validating the information in the appendix and providing corrections 

to DLMSO. 
10

f. DLMS Supplement (DS) Review. 

 (1) The Committee completed review of the DS to the 

940R Federal Implementation Convention (IC), Materiel Release. The 

following SPRC 01-1 and 01-2 comments/corrections apply:

• When action code “RG”, in the W0507 segment, page 7, is used, 

the transaction must also identify whether the item is a 

“reparable” or a “consumable”.

• The DLMS manual should be changed to reflect that DAASC must 

monitor for additional status recipients when the DLMS is the 

total operating environment. 

• DLMSO must verify the wording of the DLMS NOTE in reference to 

the use of MILSTRIP code “M” to indicate “thousands” when the 

quantity ordered exceeds 99,999 (W0101 segment).

• The DAASC representative requested DLMSO review their mapping 

of the “Earliest delivery date” and “Last acceptable delivery 

date” for the G6201/G6202 segments.

• DLMSO will look into the feasibility of using commercial 

standards for UI to eliminate the requirement for DLMS 

conversion tables. (A note referencing the accounting 

classification appendix may be needed in the FA2 segment.)

• Additional clarification and, possibly, a new qualifier is 

needed to identify the recipient of a lateral redistribution 

order.

• Army unique requirements for the unit value and for the type of 

physical inventory/transaction history code were discussed with 

no resolution. Further investigation by DLMSO and the Army is 

required. The discussion raised the issue of unit price, which 

was streamlined out of the IC and never reinstated, and how to 

handle prices that exceed the DLSS field size restraints.

• The correct application of “optional (must use)” guidance at 

both the loop and usage levels caused some concern. DLMSO 

provides the following explanation: According to section 2.3.6 

of the ANSI X12 Design Rules document "Since the first segment 

of a loop is always mandatory if the loop is used, the 

requirement designator of the first segment specifies the usage 

of the loop." Once the loop is specified as Optional (Must 

Use), all of the loop usage requirements designators will be 

Optional (Must Use). This cannot be changed. However, we can 

separately designate the usage for the segments within the 

loop.