2

questioned whether incremental withdrawal should be addressed in

the MILSTRIP DEPRA Supplement. The Components agreed that no

action was necessary at this time.

c. Clarification of Required Delivery Date (RDD)

Guidance. The PRC discussed and agreed to recommend revisions to

DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Material Management Regulation, to correct

inaccurate and imprecise wording of RDD guidance. The proposed

changes will bring the MMR in alignment with MILSTRIP.

Action: Revisions were forwarded to DUSD(L)MDM. For details see

revised PRC handout at Enclosure 2.

d. DLMS Quarterly Supply Status Review. The reinstituted quarterly report was distributed on May 7, 1999. The

Committee reviewed the report to determine where further action

could be taken. As a result, a Request for Implementation Date

(RFID) for Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) 21 (Pseudo Closure) will be

issued incorporating a DLA-recommended revision. Extensions were

granted for Component responses to PDC 27 (OSD/CJCS

Invalid/Expired Project Codes) and PDC 29 (Priority Designator

Validation). Approval will be issued for Revised RFID 29 (Mass

Cancellations); RRFID 6 (Material Returns Reporting Timeframes);

and RRFID 7&22 (Cooperative Logistics Supply Support).

Action: DLMSO will prepare necessary documentation. The status

report will be posted to the DLMSO web site at

www.dlmso.hq.dla.mil and updated as new information is submitted.

 Components will verify entries showing approved changes as

unimplemented by individual Components as these may be based upon

outdated information. (Note, AF requested delay in releasing RFID

for PDC 27 to resolve AF concerns.)

e. Issues Relevant to Approved DLSS/DLMS Change 9A

w/Addendum, Validation of F/AD I Activities. This change

implemented validation of F/AD I requisitions using a table of

authorized activity DoDAACs maintained at the DAASC. Beginning on

September 1, 1998, requisitions reflecting unauthorized use of the

associated priority designators were output to a report.

Components were to evaluate the process and consider moving to

automatic downgrading four months after implementation. The

evaluation was delayed to allow the Services to adjust the list of

authorized activities in accordance with newly defined F/AD

criteria and the annual review directed by J4. This effort is now

complete and the discussion of the Component evaluation will be

scheduled for the 99-3 meeting. DLMSO request followup

information from the General Services Administration (GSA) which

was previously asked to look into improper transactions submitted

by civil agencies (e.g. USPS, CIA, and FAA). This type of abuse
3

might offer an additional opportunity to implement automatic

downgrading. 

Action: GSA will report status of research into civil agency

abuse. DAASC will fine-tune report output to allow printing by

Component. DAASC will advise when table updates based upon J4

annual review are in place. Components will research output

reports to assess factors contributing to apparent abuse in

preparation of planned 99-3 evaluation.

f. Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS).

Mr. Paul Halpern, OUSD(A&T), presented a DPAS information briefing

which explained how contacts supporting key defense programs

receive ratings which indicate urgent national or military

priority.

g. Project Code Discussion. The 99-1 discussion on

Project Code 3AB indicated there were problems deciphering which

defined use of the code was applicable since the code has two

distinct uses. Based upon Component preference, the Committee

agreed to limit the existing code to repair and return and

establish a new code for repair. After some discussion, the exact

wording for the 3AB and new code 3BB definitions were finalized. 

Also discussed was the meaning of the similarly worded project

code 3AD. It was agreed to modify the definition associated with

3AD to clarify its purpose. Additionally, there was some

uncertainty about the DAASC processing of 3AD requisitions which

will require further research.

Action: Subsequent to the meeting, DLMSO issued MILSTRIP Interim

Change 99-9 to publish the project code definitions as agreed. 

There must be further research and discussion to assess the

validity of code 3AD and determine whether DAASC should use

special routing instructions for these requisitions. A DLMS

change proposal may be necessary.

h. Weapons System Coding. Ms. Margaret Gandy and MSgt

Liz Comacho-Hart, DLSC-CSS, provided an information briefing on

the DLA Weapons Systems Support Program (WSSP). Unfortunately,

the communications link for the planned real-time system

demonstration failed to function properly. No resolution was

reached on standardizing a single weapons systems code, however,

Ms. Gandy pointed out the WSSP can accommodate a Componentassigned “alias” code to be associated with the Weapons Systems

Designator Code which DLA uses. Further, the Components are free

to request specific unassigned codes to be used as the WSDC which

may make it possible to use the same code across Component lines.

 Ms. Gandy shared information on current efforts to add a weapons

data segment to the FLIS. More in-depth discussion of assignment,
4

application, and possible alternatives will be addressed at

subsequent PRC meetings.

i. DoD EMALL Discussion. Mr. Osterhus, representing

the EMALL program office, discussed continuing efforts to meet the

needs of their customers. The following specific areas were

addressed.

 (1) Unmatched Disbursements. There was a brief

discussion about the potential for unmatched disbursements at DFAS

due to the customer’s failure to update standard systems with

EMALL requisitions. Since EMALL requisitions can be identified by

the “E” in the final position of the document number, it should be

possible to verify the extent of the problem.

Action: Mr. Thomas, DLMSO Finance PRC Chair, will research the

situation and report back to the PRC.

(2) Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) 26, DoD EMALL InThe-Clear Addressing for MILSTRIP-Based Requisitions. PDC 26

requested that authorization for in-the-clear ship-to addressing

be granted for DoD EMALL requisitioning regardless of method of

payment. However, due to Component nonconcurrence, this

capability will be extended to IMPAC card users only and will

not apply to requisitions using interfund billing for payment. 

The Army and DLA (and subsequently the Navy) asserted strong

opposition to the broad application originally proposed stating

that interfund billing coupled with in-the-clear ship-to

addressing would expose the DoD supply inventories to an

unacceptable risk to fraudulent requisitioning.

Action: Based upon Component comments, DLMSO issued Approved DLMS

Change 17 on June 1, 1999.

 (3) Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) for EMALLGenerated Requisitions. There was a discussion concerning the

applicability of the MRA requirement for EMALL customers,

particularly those receiving direct vendor delivery (DVD). It was

clarified that the closed-loop system of monitoring receipts of

wholesale stock shipments is applicable to either depot or DVD

shipments where DLA makes payment to the vendor. However, EMALL

transactions are generally processed outside the standard base

supply system of the customer and there is currently no EMALLsupported method of creating the MRA. EMALL representatives

expressed the opinion that some consideration might be given to

waiving the MRA requirement for IMPAC card customers where

alternative measures to assure receipt are already in place. 

While this might be true, the MRA provides vital information used

to determine logistics response time (LRT).
5

Action: Subsequent to the meeting, DLMSO drafted a fact sheet

documenting the key issues and suggesting a temporary waiver for

EMALL IMPAC card customers. Initial reaction from DUSD(L) was

strongly opposed to this course of action. The LRT measurement is

currently the subject of considerable attention from the Logistics

Reform Senior Steering Group (LRSSG) which intends to establish

customer wait time as a measure of the logistics system’s

capability to satisfy its customers. Fundamental to this concept

is the idea of expanding the current LRT performance measure

(which concentrates on requisitions processed through the

wholesale system) to a broader measure which includes retail

issues, issues from bench stock or pre-expended bin items,

Government Purchase Card transactions, and EMALL transactions. 

Without the MRA, DoD’s ability to implement the LRSSG’s objective

would be severely curtailed. As long-term exemption from MRA

requirements appears unlikely, DLMSO will pursue developing a plan

to capture MRA data using the EMALL and forwarding this

information to the ICP in standard transaction format. A meeting

will be scheduled to discuss options.

j. Intransit to Disposal. Current MILSTRIP prohibits

items designated pilferable or sensitive from being placed in

batch lots, regardless of dollar value. The Defense Reutilization

and Marketing Service (DRMS) requested a waiver to allow DRMOs to

review such property based upon stated criteria to determine

whether it is a candidate for a batch lot as it is received. The

waiver would streamline workload where low dollar value material

is subjected to costly processing. Discussion of intransit

control issues which have been addressed in a recent GAO report

resulted in alternative suggestions to modify current MILSTRIP

procedures. The DLSC representatives also informed the PRC of a

GSA-initiated change to the Disposal Condition Codes effective

June 1, 1999.

Action: The waiver request is currently under review at DUSD(L). 

DLSC will research potential processing changes to the intransit

control system to correct situations that foster the misconception

that property has been stolen or is otherwise missing. These might

include DAASC rejection of improper shipment status transactions

(e.g. for materials such as drugs which are not authorized for

shipment to disposal) and forced closure of open aged records for

which followup has been unsuccessful. 

k. Prepositioned Material Receipts (PMRs) for Retail

Co-located Stocks. DLA raised the issue of the need for

procedures for PMR use with retail assets stored at distribution

depots. MILSTRAP/DLMS currently provides procedures for PMR use
6

from the wholesale perspective only. Discussions revealed that

lack of standard procedures for PMR use with retail assets is

causing problems/confusion for both DLA and the Services.

Action: DLMSO will develop a draft change proposal for review by

the PRC. The proposal will provide procedures for PMR use to

accommodate the existing business practice of storing retail

assets at distribution depots.

l. RFID for Approved MILSTRAP Change (AMC) 15, New

Ownership Code O for Special Operations Forces. AMC 15 establishes

a new ownership code to identify materiel owned by Special

Operations Forces. The Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has

identified AMC 15 to ADUSD(L)MDM as critical to their mission and

questioned the status of DoD implementation efforts. In response,

DLMSO followed up with the Components and requested they provide

implementation dates by May 3, 1999 for discussion at the meeting.

 However, Navy, Air Force, and DLA had not replied. Marine Corps

indicated their implementation would coincide with Air Force

implementation. 

Action: In light of DUSD(L)MDM and SOCOM interest in this item as

critical to the SOCOM mission, DLMSO asked Navy, Air Force, and

DLA to expedite this item and provide implementation dates for AMC

15. Request responses be provided no later than June 18, 1999. 

m. PDC 19, Storage Activity On-Hand Asset Balance Data

Sharing. PDC 19 designates the storage activity on-hand balance

as the authoritative source value under the data-sharing concept.

This change supports DoD policy and intent to implement a single

item inventory record. A followup for responses to PDC 19 asked

for replies by April 30, 1999. No responses to the proposal were

received except for a Navy reply indicating concurrence with the

concept, but alluding to unspecified questions/concerns. 

Components recently expressed enthusiastic interest in data

sharing as an alternative to transactional data interchange at the

IPT for implementation of commercial standards. In light of the

keen interest in data sharing, and because this is a new area for

DoD logistics, the committee was asked again to evaluate the

change and provide comments by July 30, 1999. The comments will

be addressed at the next PRC meeting. Regarding a Navy comment

requesting DLMSO meet with the Navy central design activity to

discuss this change, we request that Navy provide more specific

comments/concerns/issues. DLMSO and the PRC would then address

these comments, along with any others received, at the next PRC

meeting. As with all PRC topics, representatives are welcome and

encouraged to bring subject matter experts to the meeting as

needed.
7

Action: Committee requested to provide responses/comments to PDC

19 by July 30, 1999. Comments received will be discussed at the

next PRC meeting.

n. RFID for Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 14, New Supply

Condition Code (SCC) V, Unserviceable (Waste, Military Munitions).

 Air Force had revised their September 1999 implementation date

for ADC 14 to Nov/Dec 2000. Navy had originally provided a July

1999 implementation date but in the absence of any guidance to

implement, that date requires reevaluation by Navy and will likely

change. Army, Marine Corps, and DLA had not replied. DLA

requested Army notify them whether SCC V assets would be stored in

DLA depots as this will impact DLA’s implementation date. 

Action: 

a. Army to advise DLA and DLMSO whether SCC V assets are

intended to be stored in DLA depots.

b. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and DLA to provide responses

to the RFID for ADC 14 to DLMSO by June 18, 1999.

o. DLMS Status Code. The Committee discussed a

potential enhancement to the DLMS to expand the size of the status

code field to allow breakout of existing and new multipurpose

codes. The proposed definition for Status Code BK with a new BK1

or BK2 breakout was used to illustrate the point. The change would

make it possible to maintain a grouping under the established

(familiar) two-position status code and would ease the transition

between DLMS and DLSS, since the code would remain essentially the

same, only the third position would clarify the exact purpose for

DLMS users. Although there was some concern expressed for

Security Assistance customers who may not be able to transition to

the DLMS, the Committee agreed that the associated groupings would

be better than creating new unrelated codes or

perpetuating/increasing the number of multi-purpose codes. 

Action: DLMSO will prepare a proposed DLMS Change.

p. Procedures for DLMS Enhanced Data. DLMSO provided

PRC members with an information copy of the DLMS Enhancements