2 

(2) determine if there are any existing EDI data elements that should be a part of 

the SFIS data set but not yet designated as such 

(3) determine if there are any EDI data elements that are not part of the SFIS data 

set but still financially applicable/required 

Mr. Matthew Carle, BTA, provided a BEA Orientation briefing for the Finance PRC members. 

Following this orientation briefing, Ms. Verna Harry, BTA, presented a briefing on the SFIS 

Interoperability Business Improvement Proposal for BEA 5.0. Following these briefings, questions 

were discussed. 

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond inquired as to which EDI Implementation Conventions (ICs) BTA is 

looking at for finance. Mr. Carle indicated they are looking at ICs 824, 821, 820, and 814. Mike Davis, 

Common Food Management System (CFMS), and Buz Sawyer, DLA, expressed their concerns that 

SFIS was not getting down to the transaction level for standardization, indicating that this makes it 

difficult to field systems without creating duplicate transactions and maintaining legacy systems. The 

group as a whole concurred with this assessment. Sandra Bryant, BTA, indicated that there is a need to 

identify transaction standardization, which needs to be addressed at the enterprise level. There is a need 

to identify who is responsible for the coordination and definition of the migration strategy from the 

“legacy” to the “to be” system. 

ACTION: Sandra Bryant, BTA, will clearly articulate and propose to BTA management, the need to 

define and standardize all of the information exchanges within BEA. BTA will review with their 

leadership whether BTA will provide the governance structure for standardization, to achieve 

compliance with the Standard Financial Information Structure (SFIS). The group feels this is critical, 

and that the EDI transactions must be quickly defined for an effective SFIS implementation. If they do 

not standardize the data exchange, they will not meet their goal for SFIS. This action is to be completed 

by January 15, 2008.

c. Inter-Service Obligation via Transaction (EDI XML/Web Call). BACKGROUND: 

(1) This topic is intended to address which IC/DLMS Supplement is required for 

the inter-service obligation transaction. 

DISCUSSION: Ellen Hilert, DLMSO, suggested that the Common Food Management System 

version of the Federal Implementation Convention 821P, be used as the baseline for 

standardizing the obligation transaction. The group concurred. 

ACTION: Buz Sawyer, DLA, will prepare a change proposal by February 15, 2008 to 

recommend 821P be the standard obligation transaction for DoD. 

(2) Draft PDC 266 – Army Requisition Established Outside of Army Standard 

System Check for Funds Availability. 

DISCUSSION: It was determined that more information is needed on this topic and on SFIS for 

the next meeting. Army is not ready to staff or implement Draft 266 PDC at this time. 

ACTION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, and Buz Sawyer, DLA, will arrange for a briefing on SFIS 

at the next Finance PRC Meeting. Ronnie Daniels, DFAS Army Representative, will arrange a 

briefing on Draft PDC 266 for the next Finance PRC. 

d. DLMS MILLSBILLS Manual Updates. BACKGROUND: 

(1) Patricia Davis, DESC-RP Alternate, was to provide a write-up on nonpayment by Federal 

Agencies. STATUS (10/25/07). Since Federal Agencies are usually our biggest nonpayers, and 

since the FMR forbids writing their delinquent accounts off, the language below should be 

incorporated into the MILSBILLS Regulation, most likely along with paragraph C1.8, 
3 

NON_COMPLIANCE AND OTHER UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS: FMR Vol 4, Chap 3, 

Para 030502L states, “Unless authorized by law to perform nonreimbursable work, DoD 

performing activities will not perform reimbursable work for another Federal Agency that is 

90 days or more in arrears in payment of previous reimbursable billings. This restriction can 

be waived by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense if in the national interest to do so.” 

(Patricia Davis) 

DISCUSSION: Patricia was not available for the meeting. On this topic, Ellen Hilert, DLMSO, 

had questions about what “reimbursable” encompasses in this paragraph. She was not sure 

whether it is discussing material or services. 

ACTION: Since there were questions on this item and Ms. Davis was not available, this item 

was deferred until the next meeting. 

(2) Susan Scott was to draft a change proposal on the use of fund code XP for 

noninterfund billing. 

DISCUSSION: Susan Scott was not available to discuss this item. Buz Sawyer, DLA, 

indicated that if the Air Force (AF) goes to the DoD Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to get a 

waiver from the Financial Management Regulation requirement to bill through Interfund, DLA 

will be fine with this change. He indicated that currently the AF would rather do a manual 

process than requiring the use of Interfund. Karen Brunnel, DFAS, indicated that when there is a 

small office and they only have a small budget, they could easily be misbilled for their entire 

budget, and then they would have no money for the rest of the year. This is why they would like 

to do the manual bill review. Buz Sawyer indicated that with the Interfund process, if they 

identify a discrepancy, they will get their money back the next month. He feels the current 

manual process requires too much manual labor. 

ACTION: If Ms. Scott feels that a change is still needed for use of fund code XP, she should 

request a waiver from DoD CFO, and draft a change proposal on the use of fund code XP by 

February 15, 2008. 

 e. MILLSBILLS Update of DODAACS: BACKGROUND. Update DODAAC FA2303 to 

FG2303. STATUS (10/25/07). Done – Close.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Hammond indicated that this item was completed and closed. 

f. 812L and 812R. BACKGROUND: FPRC to evaluate notes sections of transactions to 

ensure consistency. 

(1) Regarding the 812L and 812R DLMS Supplements, there appears to be an 

error in LIN02, Id 235, which discusses mfr part numbers, federal supply 

classifications, serial numbers, etc. There is a mismatch between the list 

of valid X12 codes and the list of allowable codes under the DLMS 

standard. A note says “DLMS Note: 

1. “Use only one of codes A1, A2, A4, FB, FS, FT, MG, or YP to 

properly identify the material requisitioned.” [However, only FS and 

YP are listed in the Supplement.] 

2. “When citing a manufacturer's part number (code MG), always use 

code ZB to identify the manufacturer's Commercial and Government 

Entity (CAGE) Code.”[However, MG is not in the Supplement.] 
4 

3. “When citing the Federal Supply Classification (FSC) (Code FT), 

always use code CN to identify the commodity name or description.”” 

[However, FT is not in the Supplement.]

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, indicated that he will check the DLMS 

Supplements 812L and 812R against the 810 and 511R, to ensure that codes carry correctly from 

the requisition through the billing process, and he will prepare a DLMS Change Proposal to 

ensure consistency. FPRC members are required to review this as well. 

ACTION: DLMSO prepare a Proposed DLMS Change by January 30, 2008, for FPRC review. 

g. ADC 226 – DODAAC Authority Codes. BACKGROUND: 

(1) DAASC to provide status on implementation. STATUS: (11/2/2007). DAAS 

implemented Authority Code edits on November 2, 2007. (Pam Meredith). 

(2) DLMSO removed TAC 3 requirement from Authority Code 02 for “Bill-to Only” 

as requested. STATUS: (11/2/2007) Completed, close (Bob Hammond). 

(3) DLMSO removed signal code D or M requirement for Authority Code 04 for 

“DRMS Only” as requested. STATUS: (11/2/2007) Completed, close (Bob 

Hammond).

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, reviewed each of these items and indicated that they are 

completed and closed. The group agreed. No actions were required. 

h. How to Establish Fund Codes. BACKGROUND: Mark Minch, DAASC, was to request 

status from Lisa Tonkin (DAASC) for distribution to the Finance PRC. STATUS: (10/25/2007). Fund 

code adds/changes/deletes will only be accepted from the Service fund code POCs listed on the DLMSO 

website, and should be emailed to fundcode@dla.mil. The format was provided to Finance PRC 

Members by email from Pam Meredith on October 5, 2007 (Pam Meredith). 

DISCUSSION: Mr. Hammond indicated that this item is closed. 

i. DLA (S9M) Billings on Medical Service Contracts VIA Interfund. BACKGROUND: 

DLA had been billing via the Interfund for maintenance contracts, which does not allow for ensuring that 

receiving reports are in hand prior to making progress payments. DLA J88 was to provide status on whether 

this process has been changed, and the billings can be manual or through IPAC. 

DISCUSSION: Mr. Sawyer, DLA, says that DSCP indicates that they are still using the Interfund process 

to bill customers for "services”. In one example, DSCP bills the customer for medical equipment yearly 

maintenance services. 

ACTION: Keep this as an open item for discussion at the next Finance PRC. 

j. FAA RIC Problem. BACKGROUND: Per Susan Scott, some FAA billings have 

RIC 570 vice RIC G69. 

DISCUSSION: Jim Sheppard, FAA, indicated that he believes that this issue has been resolved. 

He had talked to Reggie Norwood, GSA, and feels the problem has been resolved by GSA. He 

would like to confirm the details with Mr. Norwood 

ACTION: Since Susan Scott and Mr. Norwood were not available during the FPRC, this item 

will be deferred until the next meeting. 

 

k. MILS Migration Status Update. BACKGROUND: STATUS: (10/31/2007). DLMSO is 

aware that DLA EBS (formerly BSM) is using the 810 and 812 transactions. The ILS-S/SBSS Air 
5 

Force, LMP Army, and Marine Corps systems at Albany, Georgia, are currently making system changes 

to migrate to the DLMS with implementations beginning in March and ending in the fall of next year. 

In 2007 and 2008 the BTA has been providing seed funding for implementing DLMS transactions 

through a competitive nomination “Jump Start” process, which is planned to continue through 2013. We 

will put this topic on the next PRC agenda.

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond reviewed the status of this item. It was determined that we will need to 

have a briefing on this at the next Finance PRC. Also, Mark Johnson, representing USN, will check on 

the NAVY ERP for the next meeting to see if they have plans to implement DLMS financial 

transactions. 

ACTION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, will arrange for a briefing on the MILS Migration status and the 

Jump Start program at the next Finance PRC Meeting. Mark Johnson will provide status on the Navy 

ERP at the next Finance PRC Meeting. 

l. MILSBILLS C.5.6.5. BACKGROUND: This paragraph of MILSBILLS is incorrect 

as it pertains to Interim Change 00-1 to MILSBILLS dated July 27, 2001, which was not added to 

MILSBILLS in subsequent uupdates. (Susan Scott)

(1) See comments from DLMSO (Bob Hammond). 

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, prepared a matrix showing the language in 

Interim Change 00-1 that was supposed to be added to MILSBILLS (but was not added), and where 

each paragraph should be added in the reformatted MILSBILLS manual. One paragraph of Interim 

Change 00-1 (Item 5 in the matrix) called for DAASC to change fund codes referring to F3885 funds to 

the default appropriation effective October 1, 2000. Pam Meredith, DAASC, indicated that she will 

verify this and get back to Bob Hammond. All other changes were agreed to, and will be included in the 

next revision of MILSBILLS. 

ACTION: Pam Meredith, DAASC, will verify that item 5 of the Interim 00-1 matrix has been 

completed and get back to Bob Hammond with a status by January 15, 2008. Bob Hammond (DLMSO) 

will update MILSBILLS as required.

 

m. Manual Processing of Interfund Bills from G69 (FAA). BACKGROUND: 

(1) GSA to research where the rejected file is being sent and who is working the rejects. 

STATUS: (11/2/2007). Reggie Norwood is getting the rejected files and is working 

them. 

(2) DAASC to set up an account to send GSA rejects. STATUS: (10/25/2007). 

Reject messages are being delivered to Reggie Norwood's DIELOG account 

(COMMRI RUQACIH) (Pam Meredith). 

(3) DAASC will verify fund code edits on FMS requisitions. Fund code edits is 

discussed further in topic “n” below. 

(4) DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond, DLMSO, reviewed the first two items and 

indicated that these items were completed and closed. Fund code edits is 

discussed further in topic “n” below. 

n. Use of Blank, Invalid, or Improperly Used Fund Codes on Requisitions/Billings. 

BACKGROUND: 

(1) Susan Scott (AF) and Chuck Clevenger, DFAS Cleveland, were to submit a 

change proposal to validate fund codes. 
6 

DISCUSSION: There was a discussion of ADC 20, which has been incorporated into Chapter 9 of 

MISBILLS and specifies mandatory use rules for the Fund Code. Subsequent to implementation, 

DAASC excluded FMS from the logic due to reported problems with Army and Air Force transactions. 

The AF scenario was described as a prerequisition inquiry from the ILCO to obtain the correct source of 

supply from DAASC. DLMSO requested that the AF document this process; however, since this is not 

an actual requisition a waiver for ADC 20 may not be required. The Army scenario involves 

requisitions used by FMS customers to purchase major end items. DLMSO requested that the Army 

document this process and request an exception from ADC 20 business rules. The Navy did not identify 

any comparable issues with ADC 20 implementation. 

ACTION: Susan Scott, AF, will clarify the fund code issue by January 15, 2008. If this is still an issue, 

it will be included on the next FPRC agenda. The Army (Ronnie Daniels and Sarah Cook) and Air 

Force (Bobby Zoelich, Susan Scott and Kay Daly), provide requested documentation by February 15, 

2008. DLMSO would like to see DAASC implement ADC 20 rules for FMS from Navy and AF (with 

exception of the SoS query). Specific rules for the Army will depend upon the documentation to be 

provided. 

o. Proposed DLMS Enhancement. BACKGROUND: The proposal is to initiate a reply 

transaction to confirm receipt of Interfund Bill Retransmission Requests. 

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond indicated that this proposal was written in 1989 by the Marine Corps, 

and we are not sure if it is still a valid concern. No one on the Finance PRC had a similar problem as 

was identified in this proposal, and all recommended that this item be closed. Ellen Hilert, DLMSO, 

suggested going back to the Marine Corps point of contact to ensure that a problem does not still exist 

before closing this item. Subsequent to the meeting, Wayne Loman (Marine Corps Representative) 

was contacted and he indicated that this is not an issue for Marine Corps. This item will be closed. 

p. PDC 284 – Product Quality Deficiencies Report (PDQR)/Supply Discrepancy Report 

(SDR)/Transportation Discrepancy Report (TDR) Credit Tracking (Mark Johnson). 

BACKGROUND: The PDC 284 is out for staffing (for 30 days). A discussion of the PDC was held so 

that the Finance PRC members are better prepared to respond within the 30 days. 

DISCUSSION: Bob Hammond provided an overview of the PDC and addressed Appendix 2.5, Type 

of Bill Codes, with the FPRC group. It was noted that if these code changes are implemented, system 

changes will be required. DLMSO suggested using a new code other than “WU” for “Bill to adjust the 

amount previously billed due to validation of a TDR,” as this code was previously used for a different 

purpose and may cause confusion or incorrect processing. Mark Johnson, Navy, asked if these bill 

codes appear on the requisition. Ellen Hilert, DLMSO, indicated that they do not, and that the user 

would have to know the correct code for the discrepancy type. Overall, the two areas to be addressed in 

the replies to the staffing are: 

(1) Feasibility of transitioning to mandatory use of Type of Bill Code when processing 

billing adjustments for validated discrepancy/deficiency reports. 

(2) Should “WU” be used as a multi-purpose code or should a different code be 

established for future use. 

q. Air Force Billing Problems Resulting From Partial Shipments. BACKGROUND: 

This issue came up in the Supply PRC, but it also has financial implications. Since DSS 

confirms based on partial shipments, and DLA EBS bills based on these confirmations, (ARO) 

vice the material release order (A5_), the possibility exists that some bills will appear as 
7 

duplicate billings. These bills don't contain suffixes on the document numbers, and the Air Force 

finance system considers the same document number with the same quantity a duplicate. This is 

causing a lot of manual work, and is increasing the bill processing charge from DFAS to the 

Services. Air Force indicates that this is a problem for them, but Army has indicated that it is not 

a problem for them. Is it a problem for others? We need to develop a plan and select a lead to 

correct this problem. Some possible solutions include:

(1) Fix EBS not to bill until the shipment is complete. 

(2) Change DFAS systems to accommodate partial billings by 

accumulating the billed dollar amount so that bills based upon partial 

shipments are not rejected unless the total dollars exceeds the amount 

obligated. 

(3) In DLMS add the TCN to the bill or add a partial shipment indicator 

for future use. (Susan Scott) 

ADC 247 provides some background.

DISCUSSION: Karen Brunnell (DFAS Denver) provided an overview of the problem as explained 

above. She indicated that she will see if a systems change based upon solution (2) above can be 

accomplished by Air Force to resolve this problem. Ms. Hilert, DLMSO, reported that the process 

identified in (2) above is currently used by the Army, and it appears the Army is not having a billing 

problem for partial shipments. Ronnie Daniels (Army Representative) will confirm this. Mark Johnson, 

representing Navy, indicated that he will check to see if the Navy is having a similar problem. 

ACTION: Ronnie Daniels will confirm procedures to DLMSO and have his POC for the Army’s 

current billing process for partials contact Karen Brunnell to discuss. Mark Johnson, representing Navy, 

will identify the Navy’s current process for partials. These actions will be completed by 

January 15, 2008. 

r. Treasury Suspense Account Elimination. BACKGROUND: Treasury is eliminating 

suspense accounts starting **F3875 and **F3885. MILSBILLS uses **F3885 (.2000) to place 

interfund bills/details in suspense when no due-in or obligation exists. Susan Scott indicates that we 

need to discuss how we want to address this and document any required changes to DOD 4000.25-7-M. 

There was a meeting held with OSD and all DFAS sites week of May 21-24, 2007. (Susan Scott) 

DISCUSSION: Treasury has indicated that suspense accounts will be eliminated. Interfund has 

established an In-Transit account for similar uses. Randall Moore (DFAS Columbus) indicated that they 

do not use suspense accounts. Mark Johnson, USN, indicated that the Navy does not use suspense 

accounts as well. Ronnie Daniels (DFAS Indianapolis) indicated that DFAS, Indianapolis, still uses 

suspense accounts. 

ACTION: Karen Brunnell (DFAS Denver) will clarify if anything needs to be documented in DoD 

4000.25-7-M by January 15, 2008. 

Attachment