DLSSO-BM PAGE 4
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1986

b. All requests and issues must be controlled by the applicable Military
Service Accountable Officer.

c. Parts requested will be limited to those not available on a timely
basis in wholesale system stocks but are needed promptly to meet priority
requirements (UMMIPS priority 01-08).

d. Removal of parts will be accomplished by the DoD activity requesting
the parts to include furnishing all necesssary tools and equipment.

e. Reclamation requisitions for component parts to DRMOs must be manual
walk-in, hand carried documents.”

8 Add "Owning Service ICP" and its explanation to the defini-
tions and terms section.

9 Add “Owning Service" before the words “ICP Processing,”
in chapter 3, paragraph F. (paragraph H. in PMCL 4708).

10 Insert “Owning Service" between "the" and "ICP" in
chapter 4, paragraph H.9.

ll The format for the reclamation requisition will include
a field for the identification of the RI code of the owning ICP.

{c) In addition to the above, the following changes were also
agreed to by the committee:

1 The managing IMM/ICP will establish a due-in at the depot

that is designated to receive the materiel.

2 An advice code will be established to restrict filling
the reclamation requisition with only the condition of materiel as designated
in the requisition.

3 Reclamation requisitions will contain priority designators
no higher than 09.

(d) Agreement was reached that the focal points will use the
advance copies of PMCL 4708 for staffing and that PMCL 470B will be discussed
at MILSTRIP meeting 89-2 in January 1939.

(2) Disposition. MILSTRIP PMCL 470B will be issued with changes
for staffing. The focal points will provide their responses in December 1988,
and PMCL 470B will be discussed at MILSTRIP meeting 89-2, 10-12 January 1989,

b. Topic 2. PMCL 15, Cooperative Logistics Program Support Code (CLPSC).


DLSSO-BM PAGE 9
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

and obtain necessary equipment. NOTE: The life cycle of the SARSS dot
matrix printers will not expire until the 1994-1996 timeframe.

(2) Disposition. AMCL 4 will be issued with an implementation date
of 1 November 1991, permitting use of the form (DD 1348-2) prior to establisned
implementation date. The current DD Form 1348-1 with an address label, less
preprinted postage indicia, will be retained in MILSTRIP.

i. Topic 9, RFID for AMCL 3, Demand Data for Requisitions Satisfied by
DEPRA (Staffed by PMCL 491).

(1) Discussion. The focal points were requested to improve their
implementation dates to 1 November 1989 for AMCL 3. During the discussion, it
was agreed that staggered implementation dates are acceptable and will not
create difficulties among the Service/Agency supply systems.

(2) Disposition. AMCL 3 will be issued with staggered implementation
dates that reflect dates provided by the Services/Agencies.

3. The focal points were thanked for their participation and the meeting was
adjourned on 6 October 1988.

5 ge je aK

UY past
1 Encl PHILIP M. SMITH
Administrator
DoD MILSTRIP System


DLSSO-BM PAGE 6
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

(a) The Marine Corps did not concur with the proposed change
stating that the thrust of the PMCL would not pertain to the majority of turn-
ins which are those resident on the DIDS TIR. Questions raised concerned
whether or not a TCN/GBL is required for off-base shipments; will the DORMS
perform an edit on the AS3 price not matching the price reported on the XRl or
listed in the DIDS TIR; if AS3s are rejected that do not contain a price, what
are the DRMS reject procedures; and, what are the DRMS procedures for transac-
tions citing a value which exceeds the seven position unit price field? The
committee (including DRMS input) stated that a TCN/GBL is not required for
shipments to DRMS. The DRMS will edit the AS3 price on NSN items against
the DIDS TIR to verify the shipment for qualification of intransit control
but will not reject DI Code AS3 transactions that do not have a price or an
incorrect price. Transactions with a unit price that exceeds the unit price
field will be sent to DRMS off line for manual processing. The Marine Corps
withdrew their objections after this discussion.

(b) The TRANSCOM nonconcurred with the proposed change stating
that intransit control cannot be obtained without the TCN, GBL, etc. and
recommended that the unit price be entered in rp 78-80 in lieu of rp 62-68
because the TCN is more important for intransit control than the POE. The
committee disagreed with the TRANSCOM comments. The DI Code ARO contains TCN
or GBL information and rp 78-80 is not of sufficient length to contain the
unit price.

(c) The Army comments, concerning the cost effectiveness of imple-
menting this change prior to the implementation of SARSS and MODELS, and that
current systems will require modification to accommodate the unit price on the
DI Code AS3, were noted.

(d) The Navy recommended that the unit price not be made a manda-
tory entry due to the amount of items with no known price. The committee
decided that there should be at least an estimated price on non NSN items.
The Navy agreed with the revision to allow the entry of an estimated unit
price when pricing information is not available.

(2) Disposition. An RFID will be issued and the following sentences
will be added to the end of chapter 4, paragraph H.2.b. and appendix C17, unit
price entry and instructions for shipments to disposal: “Enter estimated unit
price if pricing information is not available. If the value for a part numbered
transaction exceeds the unit price field, forward the transaction to DRMS off-
line for manual processing."

e. Topic 5. PMCL 18, Accountability Documentation for Excess Property
Received by DRMOs.

(1) Discussion. The committee discussed the staffing results of this
proposal and concurred with the change based upon the addition of the following
statement at the end of chapter 3, paragraphs LL.2.a.(2) and (3): “Use of
computer listings by activities is subject to appropriate S/A implementing
instructions."



DLSSO-8M PAGE 5
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

QQ) Discussion. During the discussion of the Service/Agency responses
to PMCL 15, it became apparent that the Army and Navy focal points were not
sure that PMCL 15 had validity in today’s environment. Navy's FMS representa-
tive expressed the belief that this proposal had been overtaken by events.

The Army has requested a waiver to DoD 7290.3, Foreign Military Sales Financial
Management Manual, allowing the use of a FMSO Ii for drawdown. The Navy deter-
mines CLSSA requirements from demand forecasts based on the level of customer
investment in the CLSSA, as opposed to line item management used by Army and
Air Force.

The Army and Navy focal points requested, and DLA agreed, that the
proposal be withdrawn from discussion at this meeting and that the focal points
of each service review the minutes of the Interservice Cooperative Logistcs
Supply Support Arrangements (CLSSA) Logistical Working Group Meeting of
13-14 August 1986, with their FMS focal points who attended the meeting.

Service/Agency focal points requested that the PMCL be discussed
at the next MILSTRIP meeting and that each focal point be provided a copy of
the minutes from the CLSSA Logistical Working Group meeting.

(2) Disposition. This topic will be scheduled as the first topic for
discussion at MILSTRIP focal point committee meeting 89-2, 10-12 Jan 19389.
The focal points were provided copies of the minutes from the CLSSA Logistical
Working Group Meeting of 13-14 August 1986. The focal points were requested to
bring their FMS CLSSA experts to this meeting. Mr. Eugene Chin, OASD(P&L)
will also be invited to attend this meeting.

c. Topic 3. PMCL 13A, Revised Dollar Threshold for Shipment Status
(DI Code AS3) fo DRMS.

(1) Discussion. The Marine Corps objected to the proposal because of
the impact to field activities that manually prepare AS3s. The Marine Corps
withdrew their objection after the DRMS agreed to accept mailed AS3 transac-
tions. The Marine Corps will work toward the automation of systems for these

field activities.

The Army concurred in the proposal with two comments. The
comment on the excess equipment processed by U.S. Commissaries and the need to
ensure proper reimbursement to the Trust Revolving Fund Account was resolved.
The DRMS will ensure proper reimbursement is made to the Trust Revolving Fund
Account. The Army's second comment, concerning the increase in preparing and
processing DI Code AS3 transactions could add an extra burden to the supply
system, was noted,

(2) Disposition: An RFID will be issued.
d. Topic 4. PMCL 14, Unit Price on DI Code AS3 for Shipments to ORMOs.

(1) Discussion. The committee discussed the staffing results of this

proposed change which consisted of eight concurrences (two with comments) and
two nonconcurrences.


DLSSO-BM PAGE 8
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

with 18-6 months of remaining shelf life could be used for normal stock replen-
ishment. The committee agreed with DAAS’s recommendation. AMCL 169A will be
revised to reflect DAAS's recommendation.

(b) DAAS questioned how to identify an excess report on PWR
medical assets with 18-6 months of remaining shelf life. It was agreed that
a project code could be utilized to identify an excess report on PWR medical
assets. A three series (3 _) project code will be assigned by the DoD
MILSTRIP System Administrator for this purpose.

(c) DAAS questioned the flow of an FTE on PWR medical assets with
18-6 months of remaining shelf life. Should the FTE transaction go only to
DEPRA or flow to the ICP? Immediate resolution was not available. The focal
points will furnish their S/A answer to the question in their response to AMCL
169A,

(2) Disposition. AMCL 169A, will be revised to remove the words, “or
normal stock replenishment," from subparagraph D.3.c.(6), and require the use
of a3__ series project code to identify an excess report on PWR medical
assets with 18-6 months of remaining shelf life. The S/As will provide their
position on the flow of the FTE PWR medical assets transaction.

h. Topic 8. RFID for AMCL 4, DoD Issue Release/Receipt Document With
Appended Address Label, DD Form 1348-2 (Staffed by PMCL 485).

(1) Discussion. The Army nonconcurred with the RFID for AMCL 4.
Rationale given was that Army units are using the non-LOGMARS version, OD Form
1348-1 with appended address label and that Army resources are not available to
accommodate this change.

The committee's discussion revealed that the Army has procured dot
matrix printers for use in SARSS. The SARSS dot matrix printers produces the
forms with printed data for Army retail. These printers do not have the capa-
bility to sequentially print bar code and in-the-clear data on the same line of
print. The Army printer requires print mode change for each data type (graphic
or charactery) and to effect two print passes on the same line. This operation
is considered time prohibitive due to the number of forms required to be printed
and equipment available.

The Army was concerned that the current DD Form 1343-1 with appended
address label wil] not be available for use. Currently, Army is using metered
mail in conjunction with the address label invalidating the need for preprinted
indicia. It was agreed that this configuration (DD 1348-1 with address label)
will be continued for use in DoD MILSTRIP, less the postage indicia, as required
by the postal authorities and that DD Form 1348-2 will be included in MILSTRIP.
Both address label versions will be available concurrently. On 1 November 1991,
a review will be made to determine if the current DD Form 1348-1 with appended
address label can be removed from DoD MILSTRIP. Concurrent use of both address
labels will permit time necessary for Services/Agencies to revise print programs


OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

6301 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE, SUITE 210
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312-5044

DEFENSE LOGISTICS
STANDARD SYSTEMS OFFICE

0 6 DEC 1988
DLSSO-B

SUBJECT:  MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

TO: Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command

ATTN: AMCSM-MSM

Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command
ATTN: SUP 0323

Commander, Air Force Logistics Command
ATTN: AFLC/MMLSC

Commandant of the Marine Corps
ATTN: LPS-4

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
ATTN: G-ELM-2

General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service
ATTN: FCS, Room 50U

Commander, Field Command, Defense Nuclear Agency

ATTN: = FCLMM
Director, National Security Agency
ATTN: L111

Director, Defense Logisitsc Agency
ATTN: DLA-OSC

U.S. Transportation Command, Director of Deployment
ATIN: TCJ6-DA

1. The enclosed Memorandum for Record is forwarded for your information.

2, The action officer for this subject is Mr. Philip M. Smith, AUTOVON

284-6062.
—

1 Encl JAMES R. LEWIS

Chief

Distribution Standard

Systems Division

ce:
DASD(L)SD OLA-SMS
MRSA (AMXMD-SM) DLA-OSF
DAAS-VL ASO (ASO-SS)
AF /SSC-SMS DRMS (DRMS-0GS )
AFLC (MMLII) NAVSUP (0732)

NAVAIR (41212) AMC (AMCSM-MTI)


DLSSO-BM PAGE 7
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

(2) Disposition. An RFID will be issued with the change cited above.
f. Topic 6. PMCL 9, Priority Designator Identification and Requirements.

(1) Discussion. The focal points at MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee
Meeting 83-4 recommended PMCL 9 be withdrawn. The reason for the withdrawal
was that UMMIPS, under the definition of urgency of need designator A, allows
for priority designator (PD) of 01, 02, 03, 07, and 08, when an “unable to
perform assigned operational mission" condition “will occur within 15 days
in the CONUS and 20 days overseas."

The focal points were advised that their recommendation was dis-
cussed with Mr. Pete O'Toole, OSD focal point for UMMIPS, and the OSD focal
point for the DoD IG report, which was the basis for PMCL 9. Mr. O'Toole
agreed with the focal points rationale but not in the withdrawal of the PMCL.
Mr. O'Toole stated the PD for ANMCS requisitions could remain 01-08 if MILSTRIP
would include the 15 days CONUS and 20 days OCONUS limitation in the definition
for ANMCS.

The focal points were provided a draft copy of an AMCL which
incorporated the 15 days CONUS and 20 days OCONUS limitation in the definition
for ANMCS. The focal points were requested to concur in this change with an
implementation date of 1 May 1989, This request was made on the basis that
this was a narrative change and no system change would be required.

The focal points concurred in the draft AMCL and the 1 May 1989
implementation date if a second sentence was added to paragraph 3. The second
sentence is to read as follows: “Accordingly, reference 1.b (AMCL 9) is
replaced by the enclosed approved change."

(2) Disposition. An AMCL will be issued with the change cited above.

g. Topic 7, RFID on AMCL 169A, Increasing Medical Supply Support in DEPRA
Procedures (Staffed by PMCL 479).

(1) Discussion, DAAS raised questions on procedures contained in

AMCL 169A and requested clarification. The following are procedures that were
clarified.

(a) DAAS questioned procedures of chapter 8, subparagraph D.3.c.(6)

AMCL 169A, which stated, "(6) Redistribution of medical items with less than

18 months of remaining shelf life shall not be made to fill war reserve or
normal stock replenishments." DAAS recommended removing the words, “or normal
stock replenishment." The rationale advanced by DAAS was, if medical items,
with shelf life of less than 18 months, were excluded from filling war reserve
requirements or normal stock replenishment, there would be no redistribution

of medical PWR medical stocks. By removing these words, PWR medical assets


DLSSO-BM PAGE 3
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

Agreement: Communication for these purposes will be messages.
Navy withdrew the question.

8 Comment: The reclaiming activity must be able to process cancel-

lations, followups, and modifiers.

Agreement: Reclamation activities will be required to process
MILSTRIP cancellation, followup, and modifier transactions.

(b) The MILSTRIP committee agreed to the following changes to PMCL
470A at MILSTRIP meeting 83-4 and the changes were affirmed at MILSTRIP meeting
89-1.

1 Require the reclaiming activity to provide an AES transaction
for each condition code, by quantity available, for requisitions not filled
because the requested condition code was not available. The AES transaction
will contain Status Code CB and the available condition code will be entered in
rp 74. If reported condition is acceptable, a new requisition will be submitted.

2 Remove condition codes from MILSTRIP and provide a reference

to MILSTRAP.

3 > The owning ICP will have the capability to process cancella-
tion, modification, and followup documents against reclamation requisitions.

4 The owning ICP will be required to provide immediate status
in response to a reclamation requisition indicating the date by which notifica-
tion will be made on whether reclamation will or will not take place. The
final status will be provided NLT 90 days from the date of the requisition.

5 A new status code will be assigned to indicate the requisition
is being processed against a reclamation project. The ESD for release of
materiel to the consignee will be contained in rp 70-73 of the status transac-

tion.

6 A complete reclamation requisition format will be defined and
made a part of appendix Cl of MILSTRIP.

7 The following will be added to chapter 2:
"RECLAMATION AUTHORIZED AT THE DRMO,
1. Normally, reclamation will be accomplished by a service reclaiming activity;
however, reclamation of limited parts from usable property (such as a carburetor
from a vehicle) is authorized at the DRMO subject to the following constraints:
a. A separate requisition is required for each item to be removed. The

requisition will contain DI Codes APR/AQP/A@Q as appropriate, "N" in rp 4U of the
document number, and the extended value in rp 70-80 (estimated if value unknown).


DLSSO-BM PAGE 2
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1988

w

3 mment: DoD 4160.21-M, chapter XXII, paragraph I,, states
reclaimed assets wi be Condition Code A, F, or R. Condition Code R will be
used if reclaiming activity does not have the capability to verify that the
condition of the reclaimed asset is equal to or better than that specified by
the requisitioner. MILSTRIP will require the reclaiming activity to cancel the
requisition (Status Code CB) and identify the correct condition code in the
status transaction, if the requested condition code is not available.

Agreement: MILSTRIP procedures will have two options based
on the reclamation requisition: (1) the reclaiming activity will fill the
requisition with condition code materiel requested or better condition code
materiel; and (2) the reclamation requisition may contain an advice code that
will restrict the reclamation activity to provide only materiel in the condi-
tion requested, or, reject the requisition. If it is necessary to reject a
reclamation requisition because the requisitioned condition of materiel is
not available, the condition code of materiel that is available will be pro-
vided to the requisitioner.

4 Comment : DoD 4160.21-M, chapter XXII, paragraph G.; Marine
Corps requests that validation instructions be provided for this paragraph.

Agreement: The revised chapter XXII will include appropri-
ate reclamation validation instructions.

& Comment: DoD 4160.21-M, chapter XXII, paragraph J., states
requiring activity will reimburse the reclaiming activity for the cost of
reclamation. The reclaiming activity may waive reimbursement as appropriate.
Question: Are reclamation requisitions free issue or funded? MILSTRIP recom-
mends free issue similar to requisitions from disposal. If reclamation requisi-
tions are funded, RODS must be processed by reclaiming activities.

Agreement: Reclamation requisitions will be free issue.
For free issue materiel obtained from reclamation sources, the MILSTRIP commit-
tee does not want a ROD to be issued should a discrepancy occur. The Dod
MILSTRIP System Administrator will refer the ROD issue to the RODs committee
for review and determination.

6 Comment: DoD 4160.21-M, chapter XXII, attachment 2, urgency
of requirement codes need clarification. What is their relationship to MILSTRIP
requisitioning? Do they conflict with UMMIPS priority designators? Paragraph
F.6.g. says an R4 requirement of the owning service will not take precedence
over an Rl, R2, or R3 requirement of the other managing activity. How will
the owning service know the urgency of requirement code of the managing activity?

Agreement: The urgency of requirement codes are not neces-
sary for MILSTRIP transactions and do not relate to UMMIPS. Reclamation requisi-
tions will contain PD 09-15. The PD will not be used to determine processing

timeframes. The PD will only be used to determine priority of processing.

7 Question: What documents are used by the owning service to
communicate with the reclaiming activity to determine if an end item is avail-
able to establish a reclamation project/program or if the ICP is considering
establishing a reclamation project?


eorSTLYigy
e ee,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE < 4,
6301 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE, SUITE 210 f 4
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22012-5044 : :
Se
"en og

DEFENSE LOGISTICS
STANDARD SYSTEMS OFFICE

DLSSO-BM 0 6 DEC 1988

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 89-1, 4-6 October 1Y¥uu

1. Subject meeting was convened at 0830 hours, 4 October 1988, 6301 Little
River Turnpike, Alexandria, VA. A list of attendees is at enclosure 1.

2. The following topics were discussed by the committee:
a. Topic 1. PMCL 470A, Requisitioning from Reclamation.
(1) Discussion.

(a) At MILSTRIP meeting 88-4, 24-26 August 1988, the focal
points were not in agreement with PMCL 470A procedures. The focal points,
at MILSTRIP meeting 88-4, developed questions and identified areas requiring
resolution by the DoD Reclamation Work Group (DRWG). During MILSTRIP
meeting 89-1, the DRWG chairman and the OSD action officer for DoD Personal
Property Utilization and Disposal Program provided clarification of issues
to interface proposed MILSTRIP procedures with DoD 4160.21-M, Defense Utiliza-
tion and Disposal Manual, chapter XXII. The following are areas that required
clarification and the agreements reached by the MILSTRIP focal point committee:

1 Question: Are DI Codes A@P/AGQ necessary? PMCL 470A
assigns DI Codes AQR (for NSN), AMP (for part number), and A¥Q (for other)
DoD 4160.21-M, chapter XXII, attachment 1, DI Codes JRA/JRC formats call for a
NSN in rp 8-22, Paragraph F.5.B. (last sentence), however, says “a separate
JRC will be prepared when different NSNs or manufacturers’ part numbers
apply to the item in the group."

Agreement: MILSTRIP reclamation requisitions will utilize
DI Codes ABP, AQQ, and APR as appropriate.

2 Question: What DI code should the requisitioner use on
reclamation at a DRMO if the item does not have an NSN? DoD 416U.21-M,
chapter XXII, paragraph L., states DI Code A@R will be used.

Agreement: MILSTRIP DRMO reclamation requisitions will
utilize DI Codes A@P, AGQ, and AMR as appropriate.