2

DLMSO

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

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

Committee (PRC) Meeting 01-302-1, January 15-18, 2002

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 Supply PRC (SPRC) Chair, Ms. 

Mary Jane Johnson, MILSTRAP Administrator, and Ms. Vermella Savage, MILSTRIP 

Administrator, facilitated discussion:

Review of Meeting Topics:

 

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

The following specific changes were discussed:

1) Revised Request for Implementation Dated (RFID) AMCL 9, 

Processing Materiel Receipts Not Due for GSA Managed Items. BACKGROUND: 

AMCL 9 was developed to address unauthorized returns of GSA-managed items. At the time 

AMCL 9 was written, the Services owned their own depots, and the change required that the 

Services provide their depots a means to report unauthorized returns of GSA-managed items to 

a Service owner. Subsequent to the approval of the change, the depots were transferred to 

DLA. At that point, the Services were required to provide DLA with a Service organization to 

which the receipt for the unauthorized return of GSA assets should be reported. This change can 

be implemented on a staggered basis, in conjunction with the DLA depot system. It was noted 

at SPRC meeting 01-3 that Component use of the SDR recoupment process would provide a 

deterrent to unauthorized returns. DISCUSSION: Army has provided an implementation date 

of December 2004; Air Force response was that they were ready to implement; Navy, Marine 

Corps and DLA have not yet responded to the RFID. Air Force was asked to explain how the 

change was being implemented. This information may helpful to the other Components, and 

would have to be coordinated with the DLA depot system. ACTION: Within 45 days from 

the date of the minutes, request Air Force provide information on their implementation plans; 

request Navy, Marine Corps, and DLA to respond to the RFID. 

(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: Based upon a table of authorized activity 
2

DoDAACs maintained at DAASC, requisitions reflecting unauthorized use of F/AD I associated 

priority designators (PDs) are identified for Component review. All improper PD 04 and 11 

requisitions and Security Assistance (SA)/USCG PD 01s are downgraded automatically. 

DISCUSSION: The Committee reviewed December report data highlighting many instances of 

increased abuse. The Joint Staff (J-4) reported near completion of annual F/AD I review and 

indicated a policy change may impact Air Force procedures. This review will tighten 

authorized activity level. ACTION: Components will continue efforts to identify instances of 

high volume abuse and seek corrective action. Additionally, Components will investigate 

potential for educating the user community on appropriate PD assignment. Air Force will look 

into impact of new policy and possible reconsideration of their position on PDC 29, Requisition 

PD Validation. 

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

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Procedures. BACKGROUND: The AMCL 

11/15 procedures were initially developed to resolve DoD system deficiencies identified in 

various DoDIG and GAO reports. In 1996, ADUSD(L)MDM, recognizing the benefits 

AMCL 11/15 could have for metrics analysis (presently addressed under the DoD Customer 

Wait Time initiative), directed and funded implementation of AMCLs 11 and 15. 

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 but have not been fully resolved. DISCUSSION: DLMSO 

noted they would elevate issues of non-implementation to ADUSD SCI for resolution. 

DLMSO agreed to consider using smaller working group meetings, either led by DLMSO or 

delegated to the affected Components to lead, to address some of the specific implementation 

problems that have been identified. The following issues were addressed at this meeting 

(refer to the minutes of SPRC meeting 01-1 and 01-2 for detailed documentation of 

implementation issues):

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

of DAASC records in May 2001 revealed a complete absence of DI Code ASH transactions for 

Army. This implies that Army has not implemented the AMCL 15 procedures, or that if 

implemented; the transactions are not getting to DAASC. Army was to investigate and provide 

status of corrective action at this meeting, but the information was not available. ACTION: 

Request Army provide the initial results of their findings of investigation into AMCL 15 

implementation status, and anticipated corrective action, to DLMSO within 30 days from the 

date of these minutes. 

 (b) MRA Submission Rate Concerns. 

1 Navy Overall MRA Submission Rates. Despite having 

accepted funding from OSD to implement AMCLs 11/15 in 1996/1997, and having reported the 

change as implemented in their legacy systems, Navy's overall MRA submission rate remains 

very low, indicating the change was never fully implemented. At previous SPRC meetings, Mr. 

Michael Morra, Navy SPRC representative, stated that because Navy legacy systems are being 

replaced by SAP, Navy will not apply resources to change the legacy systems to fully implement 

AMCL 11/15. At SPRC meeting 01-3, DLMSO advised the Navy Supply PRC representative 

that he must ensure that all Navy system modernization efforts/offices are apprised of the AMCL 

11/15 requirements, and their importance to DoD. Further, DLMSO tasked Navy to document 
3

when and how Navy will implement the AMCL 11/15 MRA procedures. If implementation is to 

be accomplished by the 4 Navy ERPs, Navy must, as a MINIMUM: a) document which ERPs 

will implement the procedures; b) document when each ERP will implement the procedures; c) 

identify what systems each ERP is replacing; and d) assure that all recipients of shipments of 

DoD wholesale materiel will be capable of submitting MRAs under the ERPs. ACTION: 

Request Navy document the requested information to DLMSO within 45 days from the date of 

these minutes.

(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 query revealed continued generation of D6S transactions. The Services have been 

successfully working this issue over the past year and continue to do so. 

(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. At SPRC 

meeting 01-2, 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. At SPRC 01-2, Army reported an 

internal meeting was scheduled for June 18, 2001 to address this and other issues, and 

possibly obtain funding to fix the quantity problem. The Army SPRC representative has since 

changed and Mr. Tom Evans, the new Army SPRC representative, agreed to investigate 

whether the Army meeting took place, and the outcome. 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: Request Army and Air Force provide status update of their corrective action to 

DLMSO within 30 days from the date of these minutes.

(e) Security Assistance (SA) Concerns. DLMSO issued a 

memorandum, April 11, 2001, formally tasking the Services to respond to DSADC 

questions/concerns. To date DLA, Navy, and Air Force have provided a response to the Security 

Assistance issues. ACTION: Request Army and Marine Corps provide formal written 

responses to the April 11, 2001 memorandum to DLMSO within 45 days of the date of these 

minutes.

(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. 

Requested documentation has not yet been received from Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps. 

DISCUSSION: See SPRC 01-1 and 01-2 for detailed explanation of the problem. At this 

meeting, Army retail, and Air Force, verbally indicated they did not react systematically or 

procedurally to the TCN partial or split shipment coding. ACTION: In light of the 

widespread use of partial shipments by DSS, all Components should be looking at the impact 
4

of partial shipments on their systems and procedures. Further, request that within 45 days

from the date of these minutes, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps provide detailed 

documentation on their procedures for processing partial and split shipment coding contained 

in the TCN field in their retail receipt, MRA, and SDR processing; and the impact if 

procedures/systems do not consider this data. DLMSO will identify to Navy those areas for 

which additional clarification is required for the information Navy previously provided. 

Request DLA 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. Army representatives suggested that 

elimination of the dual generation of the D6S and the MRA at high volume activities has 

reduced the number of invalid SDRs. ACTION: No formal resolution. DLMSO will look 

into coordinating a review of required actions between DLA and Army.

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

Maintaining Accountability During Maintenance Actions. BACKGROUND: 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. 

ACTION: Carried over from SPRC meeting 01-3, request that within 45 days from the date 

of these minutes: (1) DLA and Navy provide their AMCL 12/43 implementation dates; and 

(2) Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps verify or update the implementation dates 

previously provided, since implementation would likely require some interface with the DLA 

depot system.

(5) 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. In 

May 2001, Army advised they could implement ADC 14 immediately, and asked if joint 

implementation earlier than 2004 was possible. DLMSO reissued the RFID on June 21, 2001. 

This change is needed in DoD to support the Environmental Protection Agency Military 

Munitions Rule, which was effective August 12, 1997. DISCUSSION: Responses to the 

RFID were due Aug 6, 2001, and only Navy has responded. Navy provided an implementation 

date of June 2002. ACTION: Request Air Force, Marine Corps, and DLA provide 

DLMSO their response to the RFID within 30 days of the date of these minutes.

(6) RFID for AMCL 14, Revised Asset Status Reporting and 

Logistics Asset Support Estimate (LASE) Procedures for Total asset Visibility. 

BACKGROUND: AMCL 14 was originally published June 23, 1994 for implementation in 

the Corporate Information Management single standard system effort. AMCL 14 consists of 

three major areas as follows: 1) revision of MILSTRAP chapter 14 LASE procedures to 

specifically allow their use by authorized below wholesale activities; 2) revision of asset 
5

status reporting procedures to add two new codes in support of total asset visibility, and 

revision to the associated DZE format and procedures; and 3) deletion of the transaction 

reporting procedures of chapter 8 which the Components had indicated were not being used. 

The two new asset status reporting codes and associated changes were published in 

MILSTRAP in 1994 for use based on agreement by the Components (only Air Force has not 

yet implemented this portion of the change). DISCUSSION: AMCL 14 is a candidate for 

publication in MILSTRAP. The majority of the change was published and implemented by 

agreement in 1994 in support of TAV, and the remaining portions may not have system impact. 

The transaction reporting procedures are being deleted because the Components indicated they 

were neither implemented nor required; and the authorization to allow LASE use by below 

wholesale activities does not in and of itself impact systems. The system impact would come 

into play when a Component wanted to add a specific activity to the list of authorized LASE 

activities published in MILSTRAP. ACTION: For additional verification of the non-use of 

transaction reporting procedures, DLMSO agreed to ask DAASC to perform an inquiry to 

determine if any transaction reporting related DZE transactions had been submitted in the past 

year. [NOTE: The result of the DAASC query was negative.] 

(7) ADC 52, Termination of DAASC Part Number Conversion 

Process. BACKGROUND: During a previous meeting, it was reported that hardware 

reconfiguration at DAASC would result in the loss of an interface with DLIS required for part 

number conversion during requisition and asset (excess) report processing. A proposed 

change was developed to revise business rules accordingly. DISCUSSION: DLMSO 

strongly questions the efficiency and cost effectiveness of discontinuing a community service 

forcing the Components to each implement their own FLIS interface for part number 

conversion or risk improper processing/rejection. Upon inquiry to establish a joint 

implementation date, DAASC revealed that the connection was already terminated. Although 

DAASC anticipated minimal impact due to the small number of converted part numbers, DLA 

questioned the measurement based upon possible error in the process. ACTION: DLMSO 

will issue the approved change to bring MILSTRIP business rules in line with actual process. 

DLA reported subsequent to meeting that, by lucky coincidence, they were able to implement 

a revision to ensure part numbered requisitions will interface with FLIS. Components should 

review their implementations. DLMSO will continue review to see if alternatives to 

reestablish interface are available. 

(8) PDC 62, Proposed Change to the DAASC Mailing Process. 

BACKGROUND: This change requested termination of DAASC mailings to be replaced by 

alternative communications methods to include DAMES, WEBREQ, and DDN. 

DISCUSSION: The Components objected to complete termination and refocused this effort 

toward identifying customers and situations for which mailings can be eliminated. ACTION: 

DAASC and Components will continue to investigate highest volume customers for 

replacement technologies. DLMSO will investigate progress with effort to establish a site for 

electronic forwarding of previously mailed billings. DLMSO will close out action on the PDC 

with a disapproval memorandum.

 (9) 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 change proposal to address specific RDD usage problems that 
6

could be resolved with enhanced DAASC validation. DISCUSSION: The proposal and 

Component comments were reviewed and a few additional adjustments were accepted. 

ACTION: Components will consider new items addressing: elimination of the demand 

precedence for RDD/RAD earlier than SDD; elimination of short RDD associated with work 

stoppage coding; requirement for use of lower priority (09-15) with extended RDD; and a 

requirement for higher priority (01-08) with work stoppage. DLMSO will finalize the 

approved change for release as an RFID.

(10) PDC 68, Deletion of Obsolete Type of Media Codes. 

BACKGROUND: DLMSO issued PDC 68 to update the MILSTRAP Type of Media codes 

to eliminate those codes that are no longer applicable due to advancements in technology. 

DISCUSSION: At SPRC meeting 01-3, Mr. Dave Brown, DAASC contractor, suggested, 

and the committee agreed, that the definition for the remaining Type of Media code should be 

more generic to address the various methodologies by which DAASC transmits computer 

readable transactions. ACTION: DLMSO released an RFID for ADC 56, February 4, 2002, 

citing the revised code definition. 

(11) PDC 69, Customer Identification on Automated Exception 

Requisitions. BACKGROUND: This change requires internal system generation of 

customer identification within automated exception requisitions containing clear text ship-to 

addresses as a safeguard against fraud. DISCUSSION: Discussion provided clarification of 

current practices instituted to accommodate specific customers. ACTION: Component 

staffing is on-going. Air Force will verify medical community usage of the YRZ trailer to 

insure that there is no conflict with this requirement. 

b. Component Unique DLMS Requirements. BACKGROUND: Data is 

transmitted within the DLSS and DLSS-like transactions, for which business rules, validation 

criteria, and meta data have not been vetted through the DLMS PRCs and are therefore 

undocumented in the DoD 4000.25 series manuals. This includes intra-Component 

transactions (some of which have evolved for inter-Component use); multi-or dual-use record 

positions in existing DLSS transactions; and data transmitted within DLSS "Blank" record 

positions. DISCUSSION: Component representatives must make every effort to ensure their 

unique data requirements are documented under the DLMS. Undefined data is not retained 

during DLSS-DLMS conversion. A DLMSO initiated contract with LMI was awarded in 

January to uncover and document requirements for DLA uniques. Air Force and Navy 

representatives verified that validated proposals based upon similar LMI studies are 

forthcoming. ACTION: Components are to submit DLMS proposals as required. DLMSO 

will not initiate an action to map blank or multi-use DLSS record positions as miscellaneous, 

undefined data within the DLMS.

c. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Integrated Product Team (IPT)-

Expanded Update. BACKGROUND: In March 2001, the DRID 48/Commercial Standards 

EDI IPT was expanded to exploit the full potential of the community services concept as it 

relates to enterprise resource planning (ERP)/modernization initiatives (refer to: 

www.dla.mil/j-6/log-edi/ERP_IPT/default.htm). DISCUSSION: The new Corporate Plan 

appendix addressing enterprise-wide services and action items is still awaiting DUSDL(M&R) 

for signature. ACTION: No action; no meetings currently scheduled.
7

d. New Requirement for Shelf-Life Project Codes. BACKGROUND: The 

DoD Shelf Life Administrator and the USMC requested PRC assistance in developing 

appropriate procedures for implementation of new shelf-life policy. This would permit 

Distribution Depot System (DSS) recognition of Component requests for maximum shelf-life 

material under specified conditions to include prepositioned war reserve and maritime 

positioning. DISCUSSION: Current practices and alternative approaches were discussed. It 

was clarified that Category A or B project codes using Component internal series assignment 

would be feasible for a DoD-wide implementation due to conflicting code series assignments. 

ACTION: It appears that DoD 4140.27-M and DSS will require correction to focus on 

specific Component/project codes. A draft proposal will be developed. 

e. Defense Property Accountability. Mr. Tom Ruckdaschel briefed on the 

new OUSD(AT&L)draft DoD directive and manual (DoD 5000.nn) documenting policy, 

procedures, and responsibilities associated with accountability of property, plant, and 

equipment (PP&E). He also indicated that PP&E uses the Defense Property Accountability 

System (DPAS), which is a non-DLSS/non-DLMS system. DLA raised concerns regarding the 

need for clarification of the draft manual’s scope to ensure users recognize the types of assets 

that are not subject to this manual, specifically, DoD supply system materiel addressed under 

DoD 4140.1-R, and DoD 4000.25-2-M. While Mr. Ruckdaschel stated that the intent is that the 

draft manual excluded such materiel, the committee agreed there did appear to be some 

conflicts between that premise and the definitions/scope contained in the manual. Mr. 

Ruckdaschel welcomed input from the SPRC, and agreed to provide the Component Points of 

contact responsible for responding to the staffing of the manual. 

f. DLMS Supplement (DS) Review. 

 (1) 856S,Shipment Status. The Committee conducted an in-depth 

review of the 856S DS. Numerous changes were suggested for clarification and content 

errors. Serious deficiencies associated with processing the equivalent of the DLSS DI Code 

AS6 (shipment status directed to DAAS for distribution under MILSTRIP distribution) will 

require corrective action. ACTION: DLMSO has developed a change proposal to document 

the specific revisions to the DS/IC (Refer to ADC 55 on DLMSO web page 

http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Changes/Default.htm). 

(2) 527, Due -in/Advance Receipt/Due Verification ACTION: The 

committee performed an in-depth review of the 527D DS. Numerous changes were made to 

clarify use of various data elements and segments. ACTION: DLMSO released Approved 

DLMS Change 54, January 29, 2002, documenting the changes discussed.

 g. DoDAAC Table Update. Mr. Jackie Carter, current DLMSO DoDAAC Table 

Administrator, indicated that Mr. Ed McEntee will be taking over Administrator duties. Mr. 

Carter had previously discussed reengineering efforts and identified data elements under 

consideration during the redesign. DLMS transactions are being finalized using the TS 101 

for DoDAAC table update. A new web site supporting a flexible inquiry process is scheduled 

for implementation October 2002. ACTION: A DoDAAC Committee meeting is planned 

for late March. 
8

h. Next Meeting. The SPRC 02-2 meeting is scheduled for April 23-26, 2002. 

ACTION: The Navy is requested to coordinate internally to ensure that the long-promised 

overview of their modernization program will be provided at this meeting. 

/signed/

_________________________

ELLEN HILERT

Supply PRC Chair

APPROVE: /signed/ 

JAMES A. JOHNSON ___________________

Director, DLMSO

Enclosure