DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION 

December 9, 2014 

SUBJECT: Joint Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Supply Process Review 

Committee (PRC) 14-01 and Joint Physical Inventory Working Group (JPIWG) Meeting 

(Accountability in Maintenance), October 22 and 23, 2014 

The attached minutes of the Joint DLMS Supply PRC 14-01 and JPIWG Meeting are 

forwarded for your information and action as appropriate. 

The Defense Logistics Management Standards points of contact are Ms. Ellen Hilert, 

(703) 767-0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil, Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, 

(703) 767-0677; or email mary.jane.johnson@dla.mil, Ms. Heidi Daverede, (703) 767-5111 or 

email heidi.daverede@dla.mil, Mr. Luis Madrigal, (703) 767-2011 or email 

luis.madrigal@dla.mil. 

Attachment 

As stated 

DISTRIBUTION: 

ODASD (SCI) 

ODASD DP AP (PDI) 

Supply PRC 

JPIWG 

Attendees 

Director 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office 
4 1

December 9, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Joint Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Joint Supply Process Review 

Committee (PRC) 14-01 and Joint Physical Inventory Work Group (JPIWG) Meeting

on Accountability in Maintenance, October 22 and 23, 2014

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. 

This was a focused meeting to address maintaining supply accountability during organic depot 

maintenance (Depot Maintenance Inter-Service Support Agreement (DMISA) and intraComponent) on the first day and during commercial maintenance on the second day. 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 and the JPIWG webpage: 

www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/JPIWG/JPIWG.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), Ms. Heidi Daverede (Supply PRC Co-Chair/DOD MILSTRIP Alternate), and 

Mr. Luis Madrigal (JPIWG Chair), facilitated discussion. The initial list of action items for the 

meeting was distributed November 7, 2014. The Action Item Tracker contains the final 

approved action items. The most recent version of the Action Item Tracker will be posted to the 

committee pages noted in the previous paragraph. Action item due dates are identified in the 

Action Item Tracker.

Review of Meeting Topics:

a. Accountability During Repair. Ms. Jan Mulligan, ODASD (SCI) provided an overview 

of the DOD policy for accountability during repair with a focus on the accountable record. Ms. 

Mulligan clarified that DODM 4140.01, Volume 5 policy and definitions are being reviewed in 

conjunction with the DOD Comprehensive Inventory Management Improvement Plan (CIMIP) 

Work Group (WG). The CIMIP WG is working to improve government furnished property 

(GFP) and government furnished materiel (GFM) definitions and to align procedures to support 

the policy. It was noted that the procedures may vary by the type of contract (e.g. performance 

based logistics (PBL), contractor logistics support (CLS), or repair only). One issue being 

discussed is inventory accountability with specific attention to inventory accountability during

repair. Ms. Mulligan welcomed input from the Supply PRC and JPIWG members to address 

what needs to be changed. The CIMIP WG has DOD Component participation and the 

November 2014 meeting will address accountability (beyond repair). Their effort involves 
4 2

redefining procedures and developing policy recommendations. A draft document is expected in 

the January 2015 timeframe for DOD Component review and comment. 

Ms. Mulligan noted that the total item property record (TIPR) is being reviewed from an 

accountability perspective and indicated there may be changes specifically related to the 

contractor maintenance side, where problems are being found, rather than the organic repair side 

where they are not finding as many issues. For commercial repair, even though the contractor 

has stewardship, the owning Component maintains accountability. Accountability for 

disassembled items was a later topic, but Ms. Mulligan responded to a question by noting the 

policy review will address the timeframe for picking disassembled items up in the DOD 

inventory. Ms. Ellen Hilert (DLMSO) asked a question relating to the existing policy that TIPR 

includes materiel on hand at retail activities and reported assets in the custody of users. In 

response, a question was asked of Ms. Mulligan if operations maintenance and support (OM&S) 

fell within the scope of the CIMIP and whether it should be addressed elsewhere, as it is not in 

the current CIMIP Charter.

b. Open Action Items from Supply PRC 13-01. DLMSO led the discussion on a number 

of open action items from the Supply PRC 13-01.

(1) SPRC 13-01, Action Item (AI) 5 – Management Code V. This topic was 

associated with the Issue from Receiving (IFR) process. Action addressed possible DLA 

Distribution development of a Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) for the IFR process; however any 

Service could develop and submit a PDC for this process. Ms. Hilert noted that IFR should be of

particular interest to the Air Force when implementing DLMS if transactions are no longer 

processed through their direct interface via Customer Information Control System (CICS). The 

DLMSO understanding is that the CICS interface would be phased out when implementing a 

fully DLMS compliant system with all transactions processed via the DLA Transaction Services 

Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) hub. Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA) noted the Air 

Force would need to look at the timing requirements with the shortened timeframe needed for 

IFR. Ms. Hilert noted that that there may be ways to speed up DAAS processing using an 

approach similar to what was done for the base realignment and closure (BRAC) transaction 

processing or with DAAS Web Services. See Action Item 1.

(2) SPRC 13-01, Action Item 11 – Army to provide additional process details 

about the issue resulting in the use of 511R/A4_ vs 511R/DIC A0_ (Requisition) to trigger 

induction into maintenance. Discussion of the Army action item resulted in a more general 

discussion of the three project codes (3AD1, 3BB2 and 3AB3) related to requisitioning reparables 

for induction to maintenance. During the discussion of the MILSTRIP policy to use the 3AD 

Project Code, Air Force noted that they only programmed to Project Code 3BB. DLA 

 1 3AD – Used to identify materiel requisitioned for depot repair (overhaul and maintenance) of Depot 

Maintenance Inter-Service Support Agreement (DMISA) items. DAAS will use the RIC (To) (rp 4-6) to pass the 

A0_ requisitions to the activity indicated. (This code will also assist in billing and credit processes.) 3AD was 

established October 1, 1998 2 3BB – Used for materiel shipments to a repair activity for repair as directed under existing agreements including 

DMISA. (Not applicable to repair and return. See Project Code 3AB). 3BB was established June 1, 1999.

3 3AB – Used for materiel shipments to a designated repair activity for repair and return to an end user as directed 

under existing agreements including DMISA. Established December 1, 1977
4 3

Transaction Services noted that DAAS is passing A0_/AM_/AT_ transactions with Project Code 

3AD to the routing identifier code (RIC) in record position (rp) 4-6 with the exception of RIC 

SMS which is DLA. There are no DAAS edits currently in place to support Project Codes 3AB 

and 3BB. A review of this process is needed to make sure that when the Army switches back to 

using the A0_ (requisition) versus A4_ (referral order) to induct materiel into maintenance, the 

A0_ is passed to the RIC-To, vice routed to the manager based on the NSN. The Air Force noted 

that under the existing procedures, if the Army does not use Project Code 3BB, the Air Force 

will reject the transaction. The Air Force indicated that it is impossible to bill correctly since the 

3AD and 3AB Project Codes are tied to the billing process. Additionally, the current rules state 

that the Components should use an A3_ (passing order) to bypass DAAS routing rules when an 

operational project code is needed in the requisition. DLMSO action is needed to remove the 

guidance indicating that the operational project code should take precedence over the 

maintenance induction project code, since this will cause systems to fail to recognize the specific 

process involved. See Action Items 2, 3, 4, and 5.

(3) SPRC 13-01, Action Item 13. The Navy was asked whether they are using the 

distribution center as a transshipper to move condemned materiel from maintenance to DLA 

Disposition Services and an additional question about the shipment status relating to condemned 

materiel. The Navy needs to look at additional input but generally does not believe they are

sending the AS_ Shipment Status transaction for items that are picked up by DLA Disposition 

Services. Ms. Hilert noted that this is not correct and the shipment status is required; DLMSO 

suggested using Transportation Mode Code X to indicate materiel pickup in this situation. 

See Action Items 6 and 7.

(4) SPRC 13-01. Action Item 16. Are maintenance activities generating shipment 

status (DLMS 856S/DIC AS_) out of maintenance? Air Force noted a systems change request 

(Communications-Computer Systems Requirements Document (CSRD)-2013-06-60954) will 

address this item. See Action Item 8.

(5) SPRC 13-01. Action Item 18. Army provide input on whether any Army owned 

items are being repaired by other Services’ maintenance depots, and whether the PMR 

transaction is being provided as required by DLMS. Army noted that several items were being 

repaired by Air Force and Navy, but did not address the PMR question. See Action Item 9.

(6) SPRC 13-01 Action Item 22. This action item addressed distribution center

receipt of reparable returns under Army directed Stock Readiness procedures. The SPRC 13-01 

action requested that the Army submit a change to the language in the stock readiness procedures 

DLAI 4145.4 et al, or a DLMS change to align the two sets of procedures. Ms. Hilert provided a 

summary of the issue and the conflict with MILSTRAP rules, which require receipt reporting of 

materiel in the actual condition received and objected to the guidance associated with “used 

materiel”. Just because materiel appears “used” is not justification to change the condition code 

to less than one that reflects issuable materiel. On a separate issue, DLA Distribution confirmed 

that they are sending Army receipts for Supply Condition Code (SCC) K materiel and LMP has 

not indicated any issue. DLA Distribution provided examples of SCC K being sent to Army on 

October 23, 2014. See Action Item 10.

 4 CSRD-2013-06-6095 is scheduled to start October 1, 2015 and the ECD is 1 December 2016.
4 4

(7) SPRC 13-01 Action Item 24. Army to verify the Stock Readiness procedures for 

Depot SCC H determination for Army non-reparable customer returns where the item has been 

used and is not in its original pack. See Action Item 11.

c. Pre-Meeting Questions: Day 1. 

(1) Are Services following DLMS/MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP procedures to move 

materiel into and out of organic maintenance (reference SPRC 13-01)? Air Force noted the 

DLMS/MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP flows for organic maintenance are not being followed for 

DMISA, and Air Force CSRD-2013-06-6095 will correct this. When Maintenance goes to DSS 

to get assets, they go through the Air Force D035K system; in the future the DMISA owner will 

come to D035K to ask for the asset. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps are still reviewing the 

flows. In response to SPRC 13-01 discussion, DLA noted that there is no more SCC M 

(Suspended – In Work) materiel in the DLA distribution centers. See Action Items 12 and 13.

(2) Pre-Meeting Question asked on 10/22/2014: Will the Air Force system change 

CSRD-2013-06-6095 correct the use of D7_ as a receipt business event, and D6_ as an issue 

business event? If not, when will this be corrected? Implementation must be coordinated with 

DLA since DLA implemented unique non-compliant programming for the USAF use of D6_ as 

issue and D7_ as receipt. Refer to SPRC 13-01 minutes, page 7, para c.(1). Air Force indicated 

that the use of “pseudo” RICs in D035K and DSS to segregate storage or reparables by principal 

account will be corrected by CSRD-2013-06-6095. The Air Force noted that when the CSRD is 

implemented, the asset will belong to the wholesale IM and maintenance will ask the wholesale 

IM to issue an item for maintenance. See Action Item 14.

(3) Pre-Meeting Question asked on 10/22/2014: Has the use of “pseudo RICs” in 

D035K and DSS to segregate storage of reparables by principal account been discontinued? Air 

Force noted that the pseudo RIC issue should be resolved with the implementation of CSRD2013-06-6095. DLMSO queried as to how Air Force and DLA will manage segregated storage 

without the pseudo RIC. DLMSO suggested Air Force talk to DLA’s DSS Gateway team (Mr. 

Chris Oxley) to ascertain why “ship to self” will not work as an alternative to pseudo RICs. 

DLMSO also reminded Air Force that they have a draft PDC outstanding to request creation of a 

new Supply Condition Code (SCC) X which was also intended to facilitate segregation of stock 

in a DLA Distribution Center. DLMSO has not received Air Force responses to the DLMSO 

comments in the PDC draft. See Action Item 15.

(4) Pre-Meeting Question asked on 10/22/2014: Army and DLA to confirm that 

local form 1549 is not being used at Tobyhanna Army Depot (and/or other sites) in lieu of 

standard transaction processing. Army and DLA confirmed that the materiel release order is 

now being transmitted and received; the form is no longer in use. Also, Tobyhanna is using 

WebCAV to communicate SCC changes while in maintenance. 

(5) Pre-Meeting Question asked on 10/22/2014: DLA to review their systemic 

process (SMOK) to ascertain its use for induction to maintenance. DLA confirmed that it is 

using the SMOK/post-post requisition process to induct materiel for maintenance. DLA also 

advised that they are working with the Marine Corps to reduce the reliance on bearer walkthroughs and use materiel release orders instead. See Action Item 16.
4 5

d. Open Policy Demonstration. Mr. Bill Tanner (LMI) provided an overview and brief 

demonstration of a semantic search tool that was developed for OSD Supply Chain Integration to 

allow users to simultaneously search multiple documents/manuals. Business and government 

enterprises have massive amounts of information and knowledge virtually locked away in 

electronic text files of written prose. Until now, researchers and analysts were required to search 

through important online documents by downloading individual files, opening them, and using 

the “Find Next” search feature, looking for one keyword at a time. LMI’s OpenPolicyTM 

semantic search tool eliminates this time-consuming task. The tool can examine scores of 

documents simultaneously using subject-specific thesauri of key terms, synonyms, acronyms, 

and other related terms and phrases. The enhanced vocabulary-based semantic search pinpoints 

relevant paragraphs and highlights search terms. By avoiding the one-at-a-time document search 

paradigm, OpenPolicy can reduce the time spent searching across multiple documents by more 

than 90 percent.

Supply PRC and JPIWG Representatives can obtain an OpenPolicy User ID from Bill Tanner at 

btanner@lmi.org.

e. DLMSO Brief on PMR Policy and Procedures. Ms. Mary Jane Johnson provided a 

brief on PMR policy, procedures, and issues to focus attention on the fact that PMRs are not 

consistently provided to storage activities. The absence of the PMR degrades the receipt process 

and accurate DOD accountability. There is a significant amount of lost time due to manual 

research and ultimately, materiel can be reported to the wrong owner. Failure to generate PMRs 

to receiving storage activities is an Audit Readiness issue. 

Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA JPIWG representative) addressed concerns about the acquisition 

community submitting PMR transactions and the requirement to provide PMR data to receiving 

distribution centers. Ms. Johnson noted that ICPs provide the PMR to distribution centers, but 

the information for the PMR would be based on the supply interface with procurement, for 

procurement source PMRs. Ms. Jan Mulligan noted that ODASD(SCI) plans to involve the 

acquisition community in the second phase of CIMIP to address known disconnects in receiving 

PMR data. Mr. Greg Feie (DLA Distribution) noted lack of a PMR contributes to errors in 

assigning ownership of materiel. If the receipt goes to the wrong owner, corrections to property 

records are difficult and could even result in the wrong owner issuing the materiel. Ms. Hilert

noted that when there is no PMR and the materiel is receipted to the wrong owner the receipt 

may be reversed (although use of the receipt reversal is restricted to operational “mistakes”) or, 

alternately, the gaining Service may provide a PMR and an MRO for a shipment in place (shipto-self) to change the ownership to the correct activity. Ms. Johnson noted that when an ICP 

receives a receipt transaction for which they have no due-in, they can reject the receipt using the 

DLMS 824R/DZG Transaction Reject. The 824R/DZG has the capability to include the correct 

RIC to report the receipt when known. Ms. Johnson noted that the logistics reassignment 

(DZC/DZD) transactions are not a viable solution to changing ownership once a receipt has been 

reported incorrectly due to absence of a PMR.

Ms. Hilert commented about the policy related to materiel returns to DLA and the requirement to 

establish a due-in for a directed return (especially related to SDRs and PQDRs) to a DLA 

distribution center. The effort to create a manual 80 record position due-in transaction in DOD 
4 6

EMALL is an interim solution and, a PMR template has been requested to simplify the manual 

creation of a PMR using the future FEDMALL/DOD EMALL 2.0.

Ms. Johnson’s briefing included examples provided by the Air Force that show the absence of 

the required PMR from Army in response to the Automatic Return Notification (DLMS 

180M/FTA) of materiel from Air Force. Without the PMR, the receipt was incorrectly posted to 

Air Force (RIC FLZ) based on an Air Force DoDAAC versus an Army DoDAAC in the

documentation. The Air Force inappropriately used the logistics reassignment process (DLMS 

846S/DZC/DZD) to change the owner. The Army should have generated the 527D PMR based 

on receipt of the 180M/FTA transaction in accordance with MILSTRIP/DLMS procedures. Ms. 

Hilert noted that the DLMS 856R/FTM (Shipment Status, Customer to ICP) was not received 

until after the actual materiel receipt because the secondary inventory control activity (SICA) is 

preparing the shipment status. Recently, ADC 1071 shifted generation of the shipment status to 

the shipping activity, rather than another external activity (e.g., SICA) acting on behalf of the 

shipper. This shipment transaction would also carry item unique identification data (IUID) data

when it is available. See Action Items 17, 18, and 19.

Ms. Johnson’s brief noted ADC 1102 which addresses the unauthorized return of consumable 

items with no PMR and incomplete or missing documentation with no identified owner. ADC 

1102 was written to help the distribution centers process what looks like unauthorized materiel to 

a default RIC when there is no PMR. Default RICs were assigned for Navy (NRP) and Marine

Corps (MPB). Army remains a problem area in this process and DLMSO would like materiel to 

come into the AJ2 ownership for redistribution. The Army indicates this will not work;

however, no reason was provided. See Action Item 20.

Ms. Hilert noted the awkward wording in DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, Receipt Chapter as shown 

below. The guidance indicates receipt should be reported to the “manager of the shipping DOD

Component,” but it is not clear what organization this represents or how the storage activity is to 

identify this activity.

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. IMMs5

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.

This wording came from Approved MILSTRIP Change Letter (AMCL) 12/43. Ms. Mulligan 

indicated she will put the issue on the agenda of the November Integrated Materiel Management 

Committee (IMMC) meeting. See Action Item 21.

f. DLA Brief on the Impacts of Receipt Processing with no PMR. Mr. Mark 

Lieberman, DLA J34, addressed the impacts on receipt processing with no PMR transaction. 

The figures provided in his briefing address receipts of new procurement materiel and items 

 5 Integrated Materiel Manager
4 7

being returned to DLA. Approximately 34 percent of new procurement materiel arriving at DLA 

does not have a PMR record. DLA also experiences a very high volume of materiel returns with 

no PMR/unknown originator, and cited approximately 322,000 receipts for $20 billion in 

military managed material (snapshot at point of receipt). Mr. Gary Ziegler (DLA) noted that the 

majority of these transactions were eventually receipted correctly after some amount of research. 

This delays receipt processing, causes receipt processing errors and materiel storage and 

disposition issues. During the discussion, Ms. Jan Mulligan requested clarification on the extent 

of the issue given DLA’s data on returns with no PMR and comments that much of the materiel 

is receipted correctly after some amount of research.

Ms. Hilert noted that for items that go through the Materiel Returns Program (MRP), there is 

generally a PMR and would expect that the items noted by Mr. Lieberman did not go through the 

MRP. Ms. Johnson noted that in the 2008 time frame, a DLA Continuous Process Improvement 

(CPI) effort looked at DLA PMRs. At the time, on the surface, functional experts felt that PMRs 

were being generated and updated as required, but when the systemic logic was reviewed, 

numerous issues were identified for correction. Ms. Daverede (DLMSO) noted a concern for 

how much materiel is held in a suspended condition pending research. The research itself may 

increase processing time for the receipt and has an additional cost. 

Ms. Hilert commented on existing language in the MILSBILLS, MILSTRIP, and SDR 

procedures enabling the ability of recipients to bill the processing and handling costs for 

unauthorized returns back to the returning activity. Subsequent to the meeting, the DLA 

Distribution Standard System (DSS) implemented a change to send an information copy of SDRs

for discrepant returns to the returning activity (although distribution of the SDR is an ongoing 

problem for Services lacking a full DLMS SDR interface at the retail level). 

See Action Items 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.

g. Document Number Integrity. While reviewing the transaction flows for both organic 

and commercial maintenance, a number of questions were raised regarding document number 

integrity and if the original document number is retained throughout the maintenance process. 

Prior to the meeting, the Services were asked to respond to two questions, one related to 

receiving materiel in maintenance, and the second one addressing when materiel leaves 

maintenance. See Action Item 27 for the original questions.

Air Force (Mr. Ralph Kindler-AF contractor) raised an issue with interfacing with the Army 

Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) system and noted while the DLMS 947I/DAC 

(Inventory Adjustment /Condition Code) transaction has the same document number as moved 

into maintenance, some transactions have a plain language phrase in the document number field 

that cannot be processed. See Action Item 28.

A subtopic during the document number integrity discussion was the use of the MILSTRAP 

suffix code in receipt transaction. The MILSTRAP suffix code is used to identify different SCCs

by quantity for materiel received at the same time on the same document numbers. It does not 

appear that any Components implemented use of 527R Receipt transaction RCD looping for 

receipt of different supply condition codes as an alternative to separate Receipt transactions 

using a document number with MILSTRAP suffix. DLMSO (Ms. Hilert) recommended that the 
4 8

RCD looping language for DLMS receipt (quantity/condition) loop (RCD Loop within the QTY 

Loop) be removed from the 527R Receipt transaction if not being used. See Action Item 29.

Day Two – Commercial Maintenance

h. Accountability in Repair. Ms. Jan Mulligan repeated her Day One overview briefing on 

DOD policy for accountability during repair. See Day One notes. 

i. Commercial Maintenance Transactions Flow. DLMSO presented the commercial 

maintenance transaction flow overview and then reviewed the slide showing the typical Wide 

Area Work Flow e-Business Suite Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance, and Property Transfer 

(iRAPT) Transactions (formerly WAWF) and flow.

A good bit of discussion centered on the Commercial Asset Visibility (CAV) process. For the 

transactions affecting movement of serviceable materiel out of maintenance (Slide 4), CAV is 

not using Procurement Instrument Source transactions 527D/DU_ (PMR) and 527R/D4M 

(Receipt). CAV is incorrectly using (Other Than Procurement Instrument Source) transactions 

DW_ (PMR) and D6_ Receipts in Steps 8B and 10. CAV is also tracking and moving materiel 

on the document number versus the contract number. The Navy CAV representative noted that 

CAV relates (systemically) the contract number to the document number. This was an issue 

identified while aligning CAV and Navy Enterprise Resource Planning processes. Some CAV 

changes are pending but were not specifically identified during the discussion. Ms. Jan Mulligan

questioned the impact if the contract number/document number can be related. Ms. Hilert 

responded that the GFP module of the IUID Registry requires the contract number and the 

transaction must be properly identified as a procurement source transaction. Ms. Hilert noted 

that DLMSO is working with OSD (DPAP) to try to eliminate the need for double work by 

contractors where similar transactions are required to support logistics and iRAPT (formerly 

WAWF) processes. For example, we are trying to align the use of 856 transactions sent by the 

commercial maintenance activity by having GEX repurpose the transaction to meet both logistics 

and iRAPT requirements. Similarly, the 527R sent from the storage activity may be repurposed 

using the GEX to support both logistics and iRAPT (see the last topic in the meeting minutes on 

harmonization for additional discussion). Not recognizing the transaction as procurement source 

vs non-procurement source could limit the ability to merge the functionality of the transactions. 

Ms. Mulligan asked whether the effort was worth the return. Ms. Hilert noted we still want the 

transaction to use the correct coding and have the contract number as the controlling data 

element that identifies it as procurement source. Dave Guinasso (OSD (DPAP)) noted there is a 

material weakness for GFP; the contract number is a key audit readiness item. OSD (DPAP)

noted that the contractor is required to follow the iRAPT flows. Mr. Guinasso noted that DODI 

4161.02, Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property, April 27, 2012, 

requires shipment on the contract number. Ms. Mulligan noted ongoing efforts to meet the 

requirements of DODI 4161.02 and questioned if there are alternatives to meet requirements. 

Dave Guinasso noted the effort to combine supply and iRAPT transactions to use the same data 

to meet data requirements of the iRAPT, Registry updates for GFP and supply systems, and work 

toward a solution that provides the most benefit. Ms. Hilert expressed concern about identifying 

the transaction; we usually use a code to identify the transaction and it is the safest way by 

having the sender identity the transaction such as putting D4_/D6_ DIC in the transaction. An 
4 9

action item relating to streamlining transactions is addressed under the last topic on future 

harmonization of logistics and property accountability transactions. 

See Action Items 30, 31, and 32.

j. Day Two Pre-Meeting Questions.

(1) Action Item (ALL): Ensure the original Day Two Pre-Meeting questions for 

Commercial Maintenance have complete answers including the slide with the iRAPT transaction 

flows. Due January 26, 2015. See Action Item 33.

Ms. Hilert noted that for question 1 regarding whether the Services are following procedures 

identified by policy and procedures, we know that there are still gaps in iRAPT implementation. 

Mr. Guinasso noted that generally the contractors are doing their part for the data the transaction 

requires. Several comments were received during the discussion of shipment of serviceable 

items out of maintenance. The Air Force noted that when the CAV interface was built in 2005, 

funding was not available to create the materiel release order (MRO) interface due to use of 

funds for development of Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) (NOTE: The ECSS 

program was recently terminated). The scenario addressed is repair and return where the 

contractor does not need an MRO because it is returned to the original source from where it 

came. Any deviation in the return location requires off-line communication. Regarding 

shipment status from commercial activities to customers, the Air Force does a PMR DW_ but not 

the shipment status transaction and felt the (PMR) DW_ transaction tells them it is on the way. 

The Marine Corps thought they did have some repair and return and felt that there were scenarios 

where the AS_ shipping status was not received. Navy did not think any shipments were being 

done without being directed by a release order and will address this in their formal reply 

responding to the Day Two pre-meeting questions. Army comments indicated they will 

determine where CAV is used and will include in formal response to the Day Two pre-meeting 

questions and if they are not using CAV they will check if they are using the MRO 

A5_/Shipment Status AS_ transactions. Several additional action items were generated during 

the discussion of the Day Two pre-meeting question responses.

See Action Items 34, 35, and 36.

(2) Accounting for Disassembled Items. Responses to the question about 

accounting for disassembled items were received from the Air Force. 

See Action Items 38, 39, 40, and 41.

3.a.1. Air Force Commercial Maintenance – No visibility of disassembled items or 

a process to pick up disassembled items on property books. 

3.a.2. Air Force NWRM – Unable to speak to the NWRM module, believes they 

may use CAV. See Action Item 37.

3.a.3. Air Force Organic. The D6L (Materiel Receipt - Other Than Procurement 

Instrument Source (Assembly/Disassembly/ Reclamation/Conversion/Modification)) is used to 
4 10

receipt returns to supply when using an M-series document number. (ADC 3886 addressed the 

discontinued assignment of the document numbers beginning with M).

k. MILSTRAP Procurement Source Document Number Identifier Codes. Ms. Hilert 

led a discussion of this topic that was addressed at previous Supply PRC meetings regarding 

retaining selected MILSTRAP procurement source receipt transactions related to the return of 

GFM from a contractor (D4G, D4H, D4L and D4N). CAV cited an issue with using a 

controlling contract number, as the CAV system currently requires a controlling document 

number. DLMSO concluded that for every DIC that identifies an action for organic maintenance 

there should be a corresponding DIC on the commercial side. To accommodate the CAV 

requirement for a document number, DLMSO will update guidance via a PDC to document the 

authorized use of a document number as a secondary control number for these transactions, with 

the primary control number being the contract number. The D4L (Materiel Receipt -

Procurement Instrument Source (Assembly/ Disassembly/Reclamation/ 

Conversion/Modification)), should be used to pick up the individual disassembled items at a 

contractor facility onto DOD property books. Navy was unable to answer whether CAV has 

programming that would support this process to report the disassembled items that are retained 

by the contractor. Air Force noted the serviceable bit parts tend to be picked up under the CAV 

GFM Module with a D6H and stay at the contractor site. Air Force indicated if contractors are 

going to keep the parts, they are supposed to be picked up under the CAV GFM process so the 

item manager has visibility. Air Force reported a recent system change in the Air Force module 

in D035A that enabled receipt/visibility of the entire 400 record position CAV transactions.

Relating back to the disassembled item discussion, Ms. Johnson noted that in the 527R Receipt, 

the 2/LIN01/010 segment conveys the information from the third position of the legacy 

MILSTRAP DIC D4_/D6_. The controlling number for the transaction is either a contract 

number in 2/CS01/020 for procurement source transaction (legacy D4_ functionality) or a 

document number in 2/N9/030 for nonprocurement source transactions (legacy D6_ 

functionality) in the 2/LIN/010 loop. At this time, due to constraints of DLA Transaction 

Services Micro Automated Routing System (DMARS), the corresponding legacy DIC is 

included in the transaction for the translation from DLMS to DLSS that DMARS currently 

requires. When the controlling number for the 527R Receipt is a document number, the 

transaction has capability for use of a cross-reference contract number in 2/N9/090 (Code CT) or 

a cross-reference GFM contract number in 2/GF/060. When the controlling number is a contract 

number, the transaction has capability for use of a cross-reference document number in 2/N9/090

(Code X9), if needed for tracking purposes. Looking at a policy change that says all property 

shipped back to the government must be on an 856S. For retained property, we need a “ship in

place” 856S. See Action Items 42 and 43.

l. Harmonization of logistics and property accountability transactions (iRAPT). The 

DLMSO Team with OSD (DPAP) led a general discussion on this topic. We have been talking 

about the redundant requirements imposed on contractors to provide two sets of transactions for 

 6 From ADC 388 – Air Force use of maintenance document numbers containing pseudo DoDAACs beginning with 

M is not consistent with DOD procedures because the Service/Agency Code M is reserved for the Marine Corps. 

Originally these document numbers were retained within Air Force applications and didn’t interact with DOD

systems causing misidentification of the Service. That is no longer true. Alternatives are being investigated; 

however, due to the legacy system constraints this practice may persist until modernization.
4 11

logistics and iRAPT property accountability. The vision for harmonization includes enabling 

iRAPT to accept the 856S and 527R. 

• For the DLMS 856S transaction, all the necessary programming is not in place to update 

the GFP module of the IUID Registry, so a conversion process is required to map the data 

to a comparable iRAPT GFP transaction, which can then be used to update the Registry 

under established iRAPT procedures. 

• The contractor could take in the 856S as an advance ship notice, when the contractor 

receipts the GFP materiel with a 527R, all the information can be sent to iRAPT via the 

GEX conversion of DLMS 856S and 527R to GFP shipment and receipt transactions that 

can be processed by iRAPT and then update the GFP module of the IUID Registry. 

• As a first step in this harmonization process, the goal is for the 856S to be converted to an 

iRAPT 856 GFP shipment notice. DLMSO recently completed ADC 10147 to require the 

inclusion of the contract number in several transactions associated with GFP to position 

the DLMS formats for Registry update.

• Recently an iRAPT engineering change proposal (ECP) was developed to support 

adoption of the 856S and 527R by iRAPT. It was reviewed and put on hold due to an 

open policy issue with DLMS receipt transaction reporting. Many receipts are directly 

recorded in the Service system where the materiel is received, without exiting a 

transaction to DLA Transaction Services for routing to other enterprise systems. 

DLMSO recommended materiel management policy requires an image of the receipt be 

passed to DAAS (in the absence of a receipt transaction directed to the owner) to provide

visibility of the all receipts. In addition to satisfying the requirement to close out GFP 

receipts, this would improve visibility of receipts for the Logistics Metrics Analysis 

Reporting System (LMARS) and other Enterprise visibility systems. The issue here is 

DAAS must receive the transaction (or image) for it to be picked up in LMARS and if 

there is no materiel receipt acknowledgement (MRA) submitted there will not be the total 

pipeline measurement to track logistics response times. LMARS uses the last segment to 

measure receipt take up time. The receipt image requirement would mirror the existing 

requirement for requisition images. Mr. Guinasso suggested we have a smaller focused 

group work through the harmonization and any necessary policy or procedural changes

See Action Item 44.

 7 ADC 1014 revised procedures to include contract data in transactions associated with GFP.
Next Meeting: The DLMSO committee chairs thanked all attendees for their participation, 

enthusiasm and continued support, and suggested a follow-on meeting in six months to discuss 

open issues related to PMR as well as accountability during maintenance. The participants 

strongly agreed to another meeting. 

&»~<---- HEIDI DA VEREDE 

Supply PRC Co-Chair 

Director 

~~~~@J Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office 

12 

.,,. 

[/!~(~~~ 

ELLEN HILERT 

Supply PRC Co-Chair 

~J~iut~ JPIWG Chair 
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 1 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

Action Items from October 22, 2014 Meeting (DMISA)

1. Minutes

§ b.(1)

Page 2

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

2. Minutes

§ b.(2)

Pages 2-3

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. Due: 

Army 12/8/2014

3. Minutes

§ b.(2)

Pages 2-3

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 changes needed should also be 

identified).

Navy 1/30/2015
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 2 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

4. Minutes

§ b.(2)

Pages 2-3

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 C2.23.2. 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. 

All 11/24/2014

5. Minutes

§ b.(2)

Pages 2-3

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 action item into a single 

PDC for staffing to update and clarify 

procedures for use of the three project 

codes associated with maintenance.

DLMSO 1/30/2015

6. Minutes

§ b.(3)

Page 3

Navy provide a timeframe for being able 

to send the shipment status for items 

being picked up by DLA Disposition 

Services. 

Navy 1/30/2015
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 3 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

7. Minutes

§ b.(3)

Page 3

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 co-located 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

8. Minutes

§ b.(4)

Page 3

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

9. Minutes

§ b.(5)

Page 3

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

10. Minutes

§ b.(6)

Page 3

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

11. Minutes

§ b.(7)

Page 3

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

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 4 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

12. Minutes

§ c.(1)

Page 4

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

13. Minutes

§ c.(1)

Page 4

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

14. Minutes

§ c.(2)

Page 4

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 1/30/2015

15. Minutes

§ c.(3)

Page 4

Submit a PDC to document the 

procedures to be used for segregation of 

materiel in storage by SCC.

Air Force 1/30/2015

16. Minutes

§ c.(5)

Page 4

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

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 5 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

17. Minutes

§ e

Page 6

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

18. Minutes

§ e

Page 6

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 1/30/2015

19. Minutes

§ e

Page 6

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

20. Minutes

§ e

Page 6

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

21. Minutes

§ e

Page 3

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

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 6 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

22. Minutes

§ f

Page 7

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

23. Minutes

§ f

Page 7

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

24. Minutes

§ f

Page 7

Ms. Jan Mulligan, 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. 

ODASD (SCI) 1/30/2015
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 7 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

25. Minutes

§ f

Page 7

Prepositioned Materiel Receipt (PMR). 

Services 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

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. 

Components 12/8/2014

26. Minutes

§ f

Page 7

Deficiency Reporting Systems

 1) Navy – Ask the PDREP program 

manager to investigate enhancements to 

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

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 8 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

27. Minutes

§ g

Page 7

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 

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

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

11/24/2-14

28. Minutes

§ g

Page 7

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 11/24/2014
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 9 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

29. Minutes

§ g

Page 7

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 12/8/2014

Action Items from October 23, 2014 Meeting (Commercial Maintenance

30. Minutes

§ i

Page 8

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

31. Minutes

§ i

Page 8

Army noted a desire to staff/review the 

commercial flows and use of CAV 

internally and identify any actions. 

Army 1/30/2015

32. Minutes

§ i 

Page 8

Army verify where CAV is being used with 

commercial repair sources. 

Army 1/30/2015

33. Minutes

§ j (1)

Page 9

Ensure the original Day Two Pre-Meeting 

questions for Commercial Maintenance 

have complete answers including the 

slide with the iRAPT transaction flows.

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

1/26/2014

34. Minutes

§ j (1)

Page 9

Check if they are using MROs for other 

than repair and return.

Marine Corps 1/30/2015
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 10 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

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

36. Minutes

§ j (1)

Page 9

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

37. Minutes

§ j (2)

Page 9

Air Force – What is the GFM loan lease 

module and what are the transactions 

used?

Air Force 1/30/2015

38. Minutes

§ j (2)

Page 9

Air Force discontinue use of the M-series 

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

39. Minutes

§ j (2)

Page 9

(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

40. Minutes

§ j (2)

Page 9

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

41. Minutes

§ j (2)

Page 9

Review Services feedback, if necessary; 

draft an update to the DLMS procedures 

to address accounting for disassembled 

items.

DLMSO
Addendum – Action Item Tracker for the 22-23 October 2014 Joint Supply PRC and JPIWG Meeting (SPRC 14-01)

Current as of December 9, 2014

Page 11 of 11

No Reference Action Item Responsibility Target 

Due Date

Status Notes

42. Minutes

§ k

Page 10

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 nonprocurement 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

43. Minutes

§ k

Page 10

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

44. Minutes

§ l

Page 11

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