DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

 HEADQUARTERS

 8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

 FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

October 5, 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Supply Process Review Committee Meeting 21-1, August 25, 2021

This memorandum forwards the attached minutes of the Supply Process Review 

Committee 21-1 meeting for your information and action as appropriate. 

The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office points of contact are Mr. Rafael Gonzalez, 

e- mail Rafael.Gonzalez@dla.mil, Ms. Tonja Carter, e-mail Tonja.Carter@dla.mil, and Dr. Gail 

Fuller, e-mail Gail.fuller@dla.mil. 

THOMAS A. DELANEY 

Director, Defense Enterprise Data Standards 

Office

Attachment

As stated

DISTRIBUTION:

ODASD(Logistics)

Supply PRC

Attendees
Attachment

Page 1

MINUTES FROM SUPPLY PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 21-1, 

AUGUST 25, 2021

1. General: The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office (DEDSO) convened a virtual 

meeting of the Supply PRC via Microsoft Teams and a teleconference on August 25, 2021. 

Specific discussion topics are noted below. The meeting agenda, briefing materiel, and the 

Action Item Tracker are available on the Supply PRC web page: 

https://www.dla.mil/HQ/InformationOperations/DLMS/Archives/supply/.

2. Purpose: The intent of the Supply PRC meeting was to inform stakeholders of several 

ongoing initiatives that impact them collectively and elicit their input on the initiatives. The 

topics were:

1. Accountability Challenges in the Supply Chain for End Items under Contractor Repair 

2. DoD Component Briefings DLA Pseudo Routing Identifier Codes (RICs)

3. Materiel Segregation in Storage by Purpose

Mr. Rafael Gonzalez and Ms. Tonja Carter facilitated the meeting discussions. The 

discussion topics and resulting action items are below. The Action Item Tracker contains the 

resulting action items which are due within 30 days from the Supply PRC 21-01 meeting 

minutes publication unless otherwise stated.

3. Opening Remarks: Mr. Gonzalez provided opening remarks and introduced Mr. Tad 

DeLaney, Director, Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office, who welcomed participants and 

talked briefly about the mission and recent name change. Mr. DeLaney introduced DEDSO, 

previously the Enterprise Business Standards Office, and discussed the ongoing organizational

changes towards DoD data standards and future initiatives. 

4. Meeting Topics:

a. Agenda Topic 1 – Accountability Challenges in the Supply Chain for End Items 

under Contractor Repair. Ms. Carter, DEDSO, led the discussion about accountability 

challenges with materiel in maintenance and to understand the challenges with maintaining 

accountability of end items while under contractor repair.

Ms. Jackie Moore, AMC J4, and Mr. Jeff Collins AMC G3 (Contract Support), briefed the 

current Army initiative within the Army Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) and how 

accountability was achieved by implementing an Army-internal web portal called Total Asset 

Visibility - Contractor (TAV-C). TAV-C allows Army contractors to provide asset visibility 

data to LMP when Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) transactions are not an 

option. The portal is intended for Class IX materiel under repair contracts but can also be used 

for any contracts involving government furnished property (GFP). Ms. Moore stated several 

larger contractors with major equipment successfully transitioned to TAV-C and now have the 

capability to send receipts and receive other DLMS transactions. Army leadership is currently 

addressing other challenges regarding preexisting contracts and contractor compliance with 

DLMS transactions.
Attachment

Page 2

Administrative note: Mr. Dennis Bryant, AMC G3, will take over for Ms. Moore who is retiring

in September 2021. 

Ms. Tiffany Dew, Army AMCOM S&D Deputy, added that for repair contracts, Army 

implemented a TAV-C solution to utilize subcontracting purchase orders associated with asset 

visibility. Currently, the contractor has two options to provide a materiel receipt 

acknowledgement (MRA). Contractors can provide the MRA via a DLMS transaction or use the 

TAV-C portal. Army also stated that use of the TAV-C does not impact the contractors internal 

accountable property system of record (APSR), but rather, provides a portal for contractors to 

report visibility to LMP in real-time.

Ms. Tina Lundy and Mr. Bob Johnson, Air Force representatives, expressed interest in how the 

Army’s TAV-C application functions and the current contractor frequency of reporting. Army 

explained that the current pool of assets included in the TAV-C program focuses on high dollar 

assets with the main larger vendors and not smaller vendors yet. Air Force contacts Mr. Todd 

Moore and Mr. Stan Hale, Air Force Class V (Global Ammunition Control Point), also expressed 

interest as they do not have direct connections with vendors. As part of the action items, Army 

will share their Concept of Operations (CONOPS) documentation for the TAV-C portal with the 

Supply PRC group. Mr. Hale asked if Army could provide a sample of the data set and Ms. 

Moore suggested that Mr. Collins work with Mr. Bryant to get data samples from Army TAV-C. 

Ms. Moore stated the Army TAV-C CONOPS was developed prior to the rollout and included 

the DLMS compliant data. Ms. Bernace Collier and Mr. Pablo Gomez from DAAS were 

identified by the Air force as support resources for the Theater Integrated Combat Munitions 

System (TICMS). Mr. Moore stated the Air Force had their program executive office (PEO)

notify the contract leads to update contracts and provide the requirements for the contract where 

the transactions are to be sent. Mr. Moore stated the Air Force only did this for six large primary 

contractors as the smaller contractors may not have the transaction capability.

Ms. Pam Rooney, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) support, asked whether the TAV-C 

capability was intended exclusively for repair contracts. Mr. Collins stated the portal can also be 

leveraged for non-repair contracts to exchange data between customer and supplier. Ms. Rooney 

stated the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Government Furnished 

Property (GFP) Module is available for all vendors and complies with all regulatory 

requirements identified in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 

Ms. Rooney stated the GFP Module has been operational since 2018 and advised the need to stop 

contractors from submitting transactions in multiple systems. Other gaps exist in GFP and 

logistics systems because all transactions are not part of the PIEE, GFP Module, and these must 

be addressed.

Conclusion: There seems to be numerous initiatives related to contractor repair visibility. The 

DEDSO team will follow up with the Army to get more details on the TAV-C portal. 

Additionally, DEDSO and DPC teams will meet to re-establish discussions regarding logistics 

property transfer gaps between PIEE GFP and DLMS transactions. DEDSO requests 

information from Navy and Marine Corps regarding contractor accountability challenges.

Action Item 1. Army provide CONOPS for LMP TAV-C to DEDSO.

Action Item 2. Navy and USMC to provide information on their contract repair visibility 

processes or applications.
Attachment

Page 3

Action Item 3. DPC to brief on the PIEE GFP Module capabilities.

Action Item 4. DEDSO and DPC to assist the Services on property transfer gaps that support 

DFARS requirements and GFP logistical requirements 

b. Agenda Topic 2 – DoD Component Briefings DLA Pseudo RICs

Mr. Gonzalez, DEDSO, and Ms. Tanya Green, DLA J345, led the discussion on eliminating the 

use of pseudo RICs. DLA will no longer be able to support pseudo RICs after DLA 

Warehousing Management System (WMS) launch. Target launch for each of the DLA 

Distribution sites was provided by DLA during the discussion. The Services will be required to 

remove pseudo RICs, change, re-warehouse or dispose items stored under invalid pseudo RICs. 

The Services will need to identify contacts to work with DLA and take appropriate disposition 

action on pseudo RICs. 

Ms. Green stressed all materiel stored by DLA needs to be accounted for under a valid materiel 

owner RIC and DLA can no longer afford to have materiel that is stored under pseudo RICs. 

Ms. Green stated Mr. Gonzalez is correct in the initial assessment and referenced the Supply 

PRC 20-1 meeting held in April 2020 that identified the initial pseudo-RIC problem. We need to 

ensure proper materiel accountability between DLA and Service systems. In a recent review of 

storage agreements with DLA, the DLA Team uncovered site-specific agreements that allow use 

of pseudo RICs. Materiel in DLA’s possession must be recorded in the proper Service APSR, to 

do this, DLA requires a valid materiel owner RIC. Ms. Green stressed the need for a broader

awareness to ensure DLA does not have push back on the existing agreements.

DLA provided a list of national stock numbers (NSN) and local stock numbers stored under 

pseudo RICs and included the number of pseudo RICs assigned. Ms. Green stated DLA is 

reaching out to the respective program managers and requests senior leadership as points of 

contact (POC) to help resolve the issue. She also referenced correspondence from DLA Senior 

Leadership sent to the Services to ensure management is aware of the issue. 

Ms. Rooney, DPC asked whether there is a requirement to move away from RIC assignment and 

use the DoD activity address code (DoDAAC). Mr. Gonzalez stated there was some effort to 

look at the one-to-one RIC to DoDAAC relationship, however there are no immediate plans to 

transition from RIC to DoDAAC to identify the materiel owner at this time. The RIC to 

DoDAAC relationship needs to be fully established for this to work before we can move away 

from using the RIC.

Ms. Carter, DEDSO, asked the Components how significant the RIC is in their respective 

systems and processes, responses included:

• Army (Ms. Dew). Yes, the RIC is relevant and used in Army LMP.

• Army (Mr. Hanson, Defense Integrated Business System (DIBS) Contractor Support). 

LMP uses the inventory control point RIC, Army Class Management Activity (ACMA)

RIC, and other global materiel master data elements to identify Army Working Capital 

Funds (AWCF) funds and financial ownership. LMP does not use the DoDAAC to 

determine the financial owner. The Military Standard Requisitioning and Issue 

Procedures (MILSTRIP)/Interfund determines the customer's fund code based on 
Attachment

Page 4

document number DoDAAC, or Ship-To DoDAAC along with signal code. The 

DoDAAC is for routing shipments, billing, and not to determine financial ownership.

• Air Force (Mr. Todd Moore, AF Class V). Yes, many of the Air Force Systemic DLMS

transactions today are routed by RIC.

• DLA (Ms. Erin Fowles, DLA WMS). Only two or three of our systems are using a 

DoDAAC today. DLA would really need to look at the capability within the 

implementation convention (IC) for the transaction to send the DoDAAC in lieu of the 

RIC and make sure we have ONLY a one-to-one relationship between the DoDAAC and 

RIC. (DEDSO Note: Most transactions are currently configured to enable use of the 

DoDAAC or RIC) 

• Army (Mr. Collins, AMC Support). Some items are categorized under Army, AMC 

incorrectly.

• There is nothing currently in LMP to determine financial ownership based on the 

DoDAAC. Mr. Collins also stated that moving away from a RIC would be a challenge

for the Army. 

Ms. Penney Robertson, Army, asked DLA if they could get a crosswalk from the four-position

DLA Site Identification to the Army three position RIC's. The RICs are identified as: 

HEAA - Anniston BA4

HETP - Tobyhanna BY6

HEWG - Warner Robins SDD

HWC1 - Corpus Christi B52

HWRT - Red River BR4

Mr. Weiner stated that materiel in location HETP was part of an effort between Army and DLA 

to mitigate pseudo RICs. 

Mr. Collins stated LMP uses plant codes and asked if DLA would accommodate their use in 

WMS. Ms. Fowles, DLA stated that Army has a plant code, RIC/DoDAAC cross walk with 

owners associated with RICs/DoDAACs. Mr. Weiner responded that the Longbow Engine 

Program was managed through a pseudo-RIC of 11P created to segregate the T-700 engines and 

containers.

Ms. Green stated that each Service has a global distribution e-mail managed by DLA 

Distribution to facilitate and support reconciliation scenarios. The e-mail addresses are, 

reconarmy@dla.mil; reconairforce@dla.mil; reconmarinecorp@dla.mil; reconnavy@dla.mil.

During the meeting, Ms. Green e-mailed the DLA distribution list to Mr. Collins.

Conclusion: The use of pseudo-RICs is not an authorized process. Service leads need to 

collaborate with DLA (Ms. Green) to address the assets under pseudo RICs stored at DLA 

Distribution Centers. Services must be aware of the WMS schedule and eliminate any existing 

pseudo RICs prior to go-live.

Action Item 5. Services to provide POCs and appropriate disposition action for materiel 

currently under pseudo RICs stored at DLA Distribution Centers. 
Attachment

Page 5

c. Agenda Topic 3–Materiel Segregation in Storage by Purpose

Mr. Gonzalez facilitated the discussion with the problem statement to better understand the need 

for segregation of materiel beyond the line item (NSN, supply condition code, and materiel 

owner). DEDSO volunteered to develop the baseline requirements and expand the current 

purpose code. Mr. Gonzalez stated segregation by purpose could replace pseudo RICs. Back in 

2018, Air Force previously requested a new supply condition code to segregate materiel by 

program, however the concept ultimately was not supported or approved by Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (DASD) Logistics(L) and DEDSO.

Mr. Gonzalez provided an overview of the current and proposed future design for use of the 

purpose code. Expanding the existing purpose code would enable all DoD storage activities to 

segregate materiel beyond the materiel owner. The purpose code would be assigned by the 

materiel owner without impacting any financial responsibilities. The storage activities will 

report and reconcile inventory records with the materiel owner for the total quantity regardless of 

the purpose code(s). A materiel owner may use a purpose code to physically allocate/segregate 

materiel to identify a purpose, secondary ownership, or a program/initiative. Materiel owners 

could assign a new purpose code at time of receipt via the pre-positioned materiel receipt (PMR)

transaction. The proposed changes to the purpose code will also include a process to assign a 

purpose code to materiel already in storage.

The proposed changes to the purpose code will not affect how Services use it today. Instead, the 

expanded process will use positions 2-6 to segregate materiel at storage activities across 

Components. Mr. Gonzalez advised the next Supply PRC meeting scheduled for October 27, 

2021, will address this topic in greater detail.

Ms. Fowles, DLA WMS, stated a concern that purpose code is not a standard SAP element and 

would require customization. Mr. Gonzalez advised requirements are still in the discovery phase 

and additional discussions will take place in the next Supply PRC meeting. He also stated, DLA 

plays a major role in developing these requirements as they store materiel for all services. DLA 

will review the final requirements to determine any additional cost to the Services. 

d. Request for Information Feedback. DEDSO requested information from the Services 

to better understand the current use of the ownership/purpose code. Input received from the 

Services includes: 

• Mr. Collins Army, AMC Support. Army uses ownership/purpose codes and raised some 

concerns regarding potential impact to existing functionality. Mr. Gonzalez 

acknowledged his concern and reiterated the proposed purpose code will not affect 

current use and functionality.

• Ms. Moore, AMC J4, coordinated an Army functional data call and provided the input to 

DEDSO. See Army feedback in Enclosure 1. 

• Marine Corps, Ground Ammo stated transactions that are received from Navy in MILS 

format includes ownership and purpose code. Marine Corps agreed to provide a sample 

of document numbers relevant to their comments. See Marine Corps feedback in 

Enclosure 2. 
Attachment

Page 6

• Mr. Robert Wicks, USAF, stated that AF Munitions (Class V) does not use purpose 

codes.

• Mr. Gonzalez asked whether Navy could explain how the ownership and purpose code is 

used today. NAVSUP 04 AMMO does not see the need for further segregation. Mr. 

Gonzalez pointed out the Navy uses pseudo RICs to segregate materiel. The Navy will 

need another way to achieve the same level of segregation. DLA will no longer support 

the use of pseudo RICs.

Split Valuation Discussion: Mr. Hansen, Army LMP stated logistics system for many asset

owners use both the ownership and purpose code batch records. Mr. Collins stated SAP allows 

split valuation for the same stock based on supply condition code. There is a valuation type 

called “noVal” which is valued at zero and does not impact the financial side. Mr. Benjamin

Breen, DEDSO, stated materiel valuation is based on the supply condition code.

Routing Identifier Code Segregation Related to Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Ms. Moore 

stated the Army currently uses RICs to segregate materiel in storage for Security 

Assistance/FMS and the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) alignment is 

crucial. Mr. Mark Seigan, Army TACOM C&D, explained issues found with tracking items for 

repair and returns using ownership RICs. The assets are owned by Army until they are released 

to the FMS customer freight forwarder. The Army found issues identifying what FMS case and 

line the assets belong to while stratifying the FMS lines. Ms. Julienne Jager, AMC in 

collaboration with Mr. Weiner, are working on establishing new FMS RICs to segregate materiel 

to address audit findings. Mr. Jim Weiner, DLA DSS, is working with Ms. Jager but stated that 

there are no current FMS RICs. Ms. Carter requested the Army clarify if this was only for FMS 

materiel and Army concurred. Ms. Carter requested a copy of the audit information for review. 

Mr. Hale, (Air Force), stated the purpose code is important for financial reporting rather than the 

RIC. The Air Force interfaces with the Services to report items to their respective financial 

systems.

Ownership\Purpose Code impacts with Logistics Reassignment: Ms. Fowles asked about the 

impact on logistical reassignment with the proposed changes to the purpose code. Ms. Fowles 

asked if the purpose code will play a factor in a logistics reassignment and whether the purpose 

code should be retained from the original Service. Ms. Carter asked if the ownership/purpose 

codes would be perpetuated during a logistics reassignment from one Component to another. 

Mr. Gonzalez clarified that the proposal is still in the discovery phase, but this can be part of the 

requirements if needed. Ms. Fowles also stated that DLA is interested in understanding if the 

purpose code is meaningful to a gaining and losing materiel owner during an ownership transfer. 

Ms. Dew, stated the Army does not logistically reassign inventory that is stratified by Ownership 

and/or Purpose Codes other than A.

Project Codes. One of the services raised the question about using project codes for materiel 

segregation. Ms. Carter stated project codes are used to distinguish requisitions, related 

documentation, and shipments, to accumulate Service/Agency performance and cost data related 

to exercises, maneuvers, and other distinct programs, projects, and operations. Projects codes as 

currently used, are not intended to segregate materiel in storage. Ms. Carter provided an extract 

from the project codes definition, “...other than Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD)/Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) assigned codes, do not provide nor imply 

any priority or precedence for requisition processing or supply decisions. Project codes are not 
Attachment

Page 7

related to priority in any respect and, when used, do not alter nor override the priority assigned 

to a requisition or shipment. Requisitions containing project codes and shipments related 

thereto will be processed strictly under the assigned priority designator and implied/requested 

preferential treatment to the contrary will be disregarded.”

Purpose Code Summary - Way ahead for the Next Supply PRC. Five topics for the 

upcoming Supply PRC, October 27, 2021: 

1. Should purpose code be a pre-defined value, defined in the DLM (i.e., TPFBRC)?

2. Controls to prevent abuse of the purpose code. 

3. Should there be a limit on the amount of purpose codes per NSN, supply condition code, 

materiel owner combination?

4. Would there be a cost associated?

5. Examples where a purpose code can be beneficial for DoD metrics. 

Action Item 6. Air Force and Navy to provide DEDSO a summary of their procedures for the 

purpose and ownership codes.

Action Item 7. Services to provide potential implementation impacts on logistic reassignments 

when inventory is segregated by program/purpose for upcoming October 2021 Supply PRC.

Action Item 8. Services to identify the need to segregate FMS assets/cases.

Action Item 9. Army to provide documentation regarding audit finding on FMS materiel.

Next Meeting: The Defense Enterprise Data Standards team thanked all attendees for their 

participation, enthusiasm, and continued support. The next Supply PRC meeting is scheduled for 

October 27, 2021.
Enclosure 1

Page 1

Enclosure 1

Request for Information – U.S. Army Feedback

LMP PMO:

• Who has implemented the purpose code and ownership code and how it’s been used 

today? We also need to understand any negative impact to this approach.

– LMP uses the purpose code and ownership code for inventory stratification and 

valuation; 

– OP code is used in Logistics functions: Planning, Acquisition, IMWM, 

Distribution, MRM, Returns Management and Disposal functions

– LCMCs, Depots, PMs/PEO, Financial, FMS communities would all be impacted

– Significant effort to make this change in LMP; if possible this might make better 

sense to incorporate into EBS-C

• Any negative impact if we sunset the Ownership Code data element? This means that 

upon approval of the change, the ownership code will no longer be available and will get 

discontinued as part of this effort. 

– Yes, the above mentioned areas would all be impacted, unless the current 

capabilities are redesigned

• DEDSO would like to make the implementation of this effort as simple as possible. We 

believe the Services will greatly benefit from this. For those who have implemented 

the purpose code, we would like to understand the level of impact that would take to 

modify the current business rules and attributes of the purpose code. This will help us 

determine if the best route is to create a new data element or expand the existing purpose 

code. 

– The effort would need to be determined based on a better understanding of the 

requirements; based on the information currently provided, the effort would be 

significant 

• Effort would depend on many factors, to include how the business intends 

to use the code to support business processes

– Effort to implement – this is the system requirement

– Effort to clean-up existing data (i.e., inventory) – system and 

business impact / effort

Supply Chain BTL:

1. LMP currently utilizes both Ownership and Purpose Codes. Ownership codes are used to 

identify if inventory is owned by a specific entity (i.e., PM, Air Force, DLA, etc.). They 

are all numeric characters. Purpose codes are used to identify a specific purpose that the 

inventory is set aside for (i.e., War Reserve, GFM, etc.). These are all Alpha characters. 

Both Ownership and Purpose Code is used in conjunction with Project Codes, which 

better define the purpose that the material is to be used for.

2. We have a lot of logic in LMP based on the Ownership/Purpose Code field. Eliminating 

the Ownership Code and only using a 5-character purpose code would require major 

system changes for LMP. We have specific logic around Ownership Codes forcing 

inventory to not be valued in our system since these materials would be owned by a nonAWCF entity.
Enclosure 1

Page 2

3. I’m not sure I understand the need for an expanded purpose code field when we utilize an 

Owner RIC which identifies the owner of the material. Expanding the purpose code field 

would appear to be a duplication of the Owner RIC and Project Code fields.

JMC:

1. LMP currently utilizes both Ownership and Purpose Codes. Ownership codes are used to 

identify if inventory is owned by a specific entity (i.e., PM, Air Force, DLA, etc.). They are all 

numeric characters.

Purpose codes are used to identify a specific purpose that the inventory is to set aside for (i.e. 

War Reserve, GFM, etc.). These are all Alpha characters. Both Ownership and Purpose Code is 

used in conjunction with Project Codes, which better define the purpose that the material is to be 

used for.

2. We have a lot of logic in LMP based on the Ownership/Purpose Code field. Eliminating the 

Ownership Code and only using a 5-character purpose code would require major system changes 

for LMP. We have specific logic around Ownership Codes forcing inventory to not be valued in 

our system since these materials would be owned by a non-AWCF entity.

3. I’m not sure I understand the need for an expanded purpose code field when we utilize an 

Owner RIC which identifies the owner of the material. Expanding the purpose code field would 

appear to be a duplication of the Owner RIC and Project Code fields.

4. Other Service customers utilize multiple Ownership codes to delineate owner within a given 

Owner RIC (i.e., NCB (Navy) utilizes 0, 5, 7, 8). Any change to this data structure would require 

their concurrence, and updates in their APSR and the interfaces between their and Army systems.

TACOM:

1. Can purpose codes be 1-5 characters or will they be a standard 5? Language states, "up to" 

implying the length can vary. If the character length can vary, it will most likely lead to more 

errors (system and human). 

-What will be considered legacy systems? 

-How will a 5-character purpose code transmit electronically in the supply systems and 

interfacing systems (LMP, GCSS-Army, DSS, DAAS, AESIP)? Will MILSTRIP 80 cc formats 

require need to be adjusted/changed? 

-Assumption: Multiple system changes needed to accommodate new 5-character Purpose Code. 

2. No comments

3. If the objective is that the Purpose Code is inter-component and no longer intra-component, 

what does "only the materiel owner will know what the purpose code value means" mean? If 

purpose codes are inter-component then the purpose code should be the same for each service 

with the exception of the Owner RIC. 

Examples or illustrations would be very helpful. 

DLA system, DSS, and Retail system, GCSS-Army, do not store stock using Ownership/Purpose 

Codes (OP Code). 
Enclosure 1

Page 3

-OP Codes are used within LMP to for multiple purposes. The most significant Owner Code is 

for PM designation. 

4. NAMI doesn't use Ownership codes but this would affect PM Ownership code 9 assets. 

Although all PMs now have distinctive Owner RICs so eliminating the Owner Code might not be 

a problem. If the Purpose Code can be 5 characters and determined by the Service then the 

Ownership 9 could become a part of the Purpose Code if necessary. 

-This would require mass system changes (S&D and IMWM and other business areas).

5. Again, requisitioning by Purpose Code would potentially cause more errors. For example

multiple batches based on Purpose Codes and requisition filled from wrong Purpose Code. 

Potential to cause more discrepancies in stock balances. 

-Army Storage activities for DLA De and Retail sites do not store under OP Codes but by 

Condition Code and Owner RIC.

-MILSTRIP document changes and System changes would need to take place in multiple 

Systems to allow for proper Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) between all Supply Systems and 

interfacing (middleware) systems. 

6. System changes in LMP and beyond required (equivalent to DAD DIC but would need to be 

able to transmit outbound). 

Would sunsetting Ownership Codes only involve the numeric codes 0-9?

There are many Purpose Code processes in LMP that will be affected by changes. One specific 

process relates to Excess Disposal Orders. LMP moves all excess stock into a purpose code M 

batch prior to disposal. If purpose code changes are made, Excesses process would need to be 

updated. Audit procedures reviewed. Also, EOD will need changes. Requisition processing will 

need changes.
Enclosure 2

Page 1

Enclosure 2

Request for Information – U.S. Marine Corps Feedback

Greatest Concerns, from Marine Corps perspective:

1) LOGCOM has questions regarding why this is being proposed and would like to seek a 

better understanding of why DLA is requesting this change and what issues they are 

trying to address.

2) Who will be expected to pay for systems changes required if this goes forward (GCSSMC and any other impacted systems)?

They also provided responses to the specific questions below:

1. Who has implemented the purpose code and ownership code and how it’s been used 

today? We also need to understand any negative impact to this approach.

RESPONSE: LOGCOM currently uses to the purpose code to flag assets by 

specific program or utilization.

2. Any negative impact if we sunset the Ownership Code data element? This means that 

upon approval of the change, the ownership code will no longer be available and will 

get discontinued as part of this effort.

RESPONSE: Loss of ownership code could impact Fleet requirements based an 

ongoing proof of concept regarding owned war reserve materiel.

3. DEDSO will like to make the implementation of this effort as simple as possible. We 

believe the Services will greatly benefit from this. For those who have 

implemented the purpose code, we will like to understand the level of impact that 

would take to modify the current business rules and attributes of the purpose 

code. This will help us determine if the best route is to create a new data element or 

expand the existing purpose code. 

RESPONSE: Modification of current business rules and implementation would 

be significant as GCSS and DOD/DLA/Marine Corps policy do not currently 

support this approach. See below for initial top level concerns:

o GCSS: In GCSS the purpose code field is limited to one character. GCSS 

would have to be updated to comply with the 5-character purpose code 

requirement.

o Fleet: Currently, only LOGCOM users have access to the purpose code 

functionality in GCSS. With the growth of Fleet units storing material at 

DLA and Fleet units shipping material to DLA at the direction of LOGCOM 

purpose code functionality will have to be expanded to fleet users.

o Electronic Data Interchange: The electronic exchange of purpose code data 

between and DLA would have to be more functional than it currently is.

o Marine Corps and DOD/DLA policy: Policy at all levels would need to be 

modified.

o DLA inventory segregation and serialization efforts: Need to better 

understand how this ties into other on-going DLA efforts.

o CUEC/Internal Controls. How will this impact the current CUEC and internal 

controls environment.