IN REPLY

REFER TO DLMSO

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

HEADQUARTERS

6725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, SUITE 2533

FT. BELVOIR. VIRGINIA 22060-6221

OCT 7 zooz

MEMORANDUM FOR. SEE DISTRIBUTION

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

Committee (PRC) Meeting 02-3, September 1 O-12,2002

‘ 1 he attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PKC Meeting 02-3 are forwarded for your

information and appropriate action. The Supply PRC Meeting 03-l was tentatively scheduled for

January 28-30,2003.

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

Hilert, at (703)767-0676, DSN 427-0676 or e-mail: ellen hilert@hq.dla.mil; and Ms. Mary Jane

Johnson, (703)767-0677, DSN 427-0677, or e-mail: ma@~anejohnson@hq.dla.mil.

Defense Logistics Management

Standards Office

Attachment

DISTRIBUTION:

ADUSD(L)SCI

Supply PRC Representatives

Attendees
DLMSO

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

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

Committee (PRC) Meeting 02-3, September 10-12, 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. To 

implement the change, the Services are required to provide the distribution depot receiving the 

unauthorized return of GSA assets, with a Service organization to which the receipt 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: DLMSO asked 

Army to ascertain if AMCL 9 could be implemented sooner that the standard implementation 

date of December 2004 which Army routinely provides. Air Force is checking on how and 

when they can implement. Air Force had previously indicated they were ready to implement, 

and was asked to explain how they planned to implement since interface with DLA distribution 

depots would be required, and the information may be helpful to the other Components. Marine 

Corps indicated they are working this issue. DLA is working the issue and may provide a 

suggested method to address the assets. ACTION: Within 45 days from the date of the 

minutes, request Air Force provide information on their implementation plans/method; request 

Navy, Marine Corps, and DLA respond to the RFID. DLMSO will try to ascertain the 

current magnitude of the problem of unauthorized return of GSA managed assets.
2

(2) Joint AMCLs 10 (MILSTRAP) & 34 (MILSTRIP), Identification 

of Product Quality Deficiency Related (PQDR) Materiel. BACKGROUND: This AMCL 

provides a standard means of identifying and controlling potential/confirmed product quality 

deficient materiel within and across Components. Further, it employs the new standard Supply 

Condition Code Q and Management Codes O and S to distinguish which deficient materiel must 

be mutilated upon turn-in to the DRMS. DISCUSSION: The PQDR IPT requested that the 

Supply PRC coordinate an implementation date among the Components. Status was reported 

as: USAF ready to implement; USA finalizing program/some problems encountered; DLA

depot systems appear ready, however DRMS changes not in place; USN will not implement 

until 2004. DLA must take appropriate action to achieve changes required by the DRMS (to 

include development of a systems change request). Remaining issues include coordinating

plans for processing of PQDR-related materiel currently in SCC L (conversion to Q) and 

coordinating staggered implementation which may require work-around procedures for 

Components not ready for automated processing (e.g., Navy). ACTION: DLMSO will request 

an internal DLA meeting to clarify responsible parties for the DLA implementation actions and 

develop an approach for dealing with the other remaining issues.

(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. DLMSO noted at SPRC 

meeting 02-1, that they would elevate issues of non-implementation to ADUSD SCI for 

resolution. DLMSO has agreed at past meetings 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. DISCUSSION: 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). 

BACKGROUND: 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 in their ICP system or, if implemented, the transactions are not getting to 

DAASC. At the past few SPRC meetings, Army was asked to investigate and provide status of 

corrective action. DISCUSSION: The Army SPRC representative was not able to attend 

meeting to present his findings. ACTION: Request Army provide DLMSO the initial results 

of their findings of investigation into AMCL 15 implementation status in their ICP system, and

anticipated corrective action, by October 30, 2002. 

 (b) MRA Submission Rate Concerns. 

1 Navy Overall MRA Submission Rates. 

BACKGROUND: 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 
3

overall MRA submission rate remains 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 ERPs, Navy will not apply resources to 

change the legacy systems to fully implement AMCL 11/15. Rather, implementation would be 

accomplished through the Navy’s ERPs which will have the “transactional agility” to 

accommodate the AMCL 11/15 procedures. 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 when and how Navy will implement the AMCL 

11/15 MRA procedures. If implementation is to be accomplished by the multiple 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. The documentation requested was not provided. 

DLMSO and DAASC questioned whether Navy’s ERPs would provide a solution for their low 

submission rate, since the fix would have to come from the customer level not the wholesale 

level. The Navy SPRC representative believes that the Navy ERPs would replace the Navy 

retail systems as well as wholesale systems. DLMSO emphasized the ERPs would have to 

replace all of Navy’s customer systems. ACTION: DLMSO will formally task Navy to 

provide the information requested at earlier SPRC meetings. 

(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 would not be required

with full implementation of the MRA procedures, however DAASC query in July 2000 

revealed continued generation of D6S transactions. Air Force indicated that their D6S 

transactions are limited to the Air Force medical system (MEDLOG) which is being phased

out and replaced by DMLSS which will include the AMCL 11/15 requirements. DMLSS 

implementation began 1 and 1⁄2 years ago (April 2001) and was scheduled to be staggered over 

a 3-4 year period. Air Force has requested that full AMCL 11/15 implementation for their 

Medical system be obtained through DMLSS implementation, while DAASC continues 

conversion of MEDLOG generated DI Code D6S transactions in the interim. As DMLSS 

implementation continues, the Air Force D6S numbers should be dropping. 

DISCUSSION: Marine Corps has successfully stopped their D6S generation, while Army 

D6S transactions dropped 93% from one year ago. Navy D6S levels dropped 45% from July to

August 2002. Navy attributes this drop to a fix made in Navy’s retail shipyard system, Material

Access Technology (MAT). However based on discussion of Navy rejects of the new DRAs

created by MAT, it appears that the fix was incomplete. The old D6S RIC To of ‘HR2’

(DAASC) was incorrectly appearing in Navy DRA transactions which should be directed to the 

ICP not DAASC. Additionally, it appeared from discussions that MAT may also erroneously 

be using a RIC scanned from the Issue Release/Receipt Document (IRRD), for the RIC To,

even though the RIC To is not bar-coded on the IRRD. MILSTRAP guidance for the source of 

the DRA RIC To is very specific in the MILSTRAP DRA format (Appendix AP3.29). 

ACTION: Navy will relay the SPRC discussion to the MAT system proponent, investigate the 

reason for incorrect RIC To entries, take corrective action, and report at SPRC 03-1. Navy will 

also investigate the source of the remaining D6S transactions for corrective action. Army will 

continue to investigate and take corrective action to eliminate D6S generation and report at 

SPRC 03-1. Air Force should check to assure that DMLSS is generating DRAs and whether 
4

the Air Force D6S numbers are dropping as planned as DMLSS implement ation continues, and 

report at SPRC 03-1.

MONTHLY D6S TOTALS

2001 2002

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN FEB MAR APR JUL AUG

Navy 10,763 11,853 9,182 10,542 10334 9059 12055 11469 9929 7191 3948

Air 

Force

 2,312 2,590 2,538 2,829 1697 1839 2067 1840 1944 2275 2026

Army 794 996 29 4 13 33 51 20 64 109 93

Marine 

Corps

 60 45 17 69 13 12 0 0 0 0 0

(d) Quantity Problems. ARMY: BACKGROUND: 

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. 

AIR FORCE: BACKGROUND: Air Force programmed their system to report MRAs 

showing a discrepancy indicator code F, indicating a quantity missing, for materiel that has in 

fact not yet been shipped. Air Force is pursuing a correction to the problem. DISCUSSION: 

The Army SPRC representative was not able to attend the meeting to provide status of 

corrective action. The Air Force indicated Air Force correction may not take place until their 

modernized system. DLMSO noted again that this change was directed and funded by 

OSD, and erroneous implementation should be corrected by the Components. 

ACTION: Army to provide status of corrective action to DLMSO by October 30, 2002.

(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. Marine Corps indicates their response is the same as the Air Force. 

ACTION: Request Army provide formal written responses to the April 11, 2001 memorandum 

to DLMSO by October 30, 2002.

(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 SPRC 

meeting 02-1, Army retail, and Air Force, verbally indicated they did not react systematically 

or procedurally to the TCN partial or split shipment coding. At SPRC 02-3, Air Force 

indicated that they compare the assets received to the accompanying paperwork. Air Force 

scenario: A quantity of 10 is due-in on a particular document number/suffix code. A quantity 

of 2 are received on a partial depot shipment with paperwork showing that 2 were shipped. 
5

Air Force generates a receipt for quantity of 2, an MRA for quantity of 2 for the given 

document number/suffix code. The due-in record is decreased by 2. Subsequently, a second 

depot partial shipment of 2 arrives with paperwork showing that 2 were shipped. Air Force 

checks the due-in record showing that 8 remain due-in, processes the receipt and the MRA for 

a quantity of 2, using the same document #/suffix code, and decreases the due-in by 2. There 

is no check for duplicate transactions (the 2 receipt/MRA transactions in this scenario would 

be identical), since the due-in record reflects that a quantity of 8 is still due-in for that item

under that document number/suffix code. Air Force felt there was no detrimental impact on 

their SDR processing since they compare the paperwork to the assets received and process 

accordingly. DAASC noted that they close the requisition record for Logistics Response Time 

(LRT) purposes, when the first MRA transaction is received. However they do process all of 

the subsequent MRA transactions received for that document number/suffix code to the ICP, 

and they are all written to the history file. ACTION: In light of the widespread use of partial 

shipments by DSS, all Components should be looking at the impact of partial shipments on 

their systems and procedures. Components should identify a requirement to their 

modernized systems to consider the TCN partial and split shipment coding in 

modernized system requirements for receipt, MRA, and SDR processing. The TCN is 

included in the DLMS 527R transaction. The TCN is not available in the 80 record position 

DLSS receipt and MRA transactions. DLMSO again requests that within 45 days from the 

date of these minutes, Army 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 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 Rece ipt Acknowledgement (MRA) with Discrepancy Code 

F). BACKGROUND: As discussed at previous meetings, DLA continues to report receipt 

of unresearched pseudo receipt SDRs. DLA procedures allow for these SDRs to be returned to 

the customer without DLA action. The Army indicated that appropriate formal training has 

been instituted, however the turnover of personnel still results in a high volume of 

unresearched pseudo receipt SDRs being submitted to DLA ACTION: The Army will 

continue to pursue corrective action where possible and report back to the Committee. There is 

no established plan to correct the underlying cause which would require program changes to 

the MRA process.

(h) MRA Report. DAASC has completed their effort to web 

host the MRA report. Prior to SPRC approval of the report, DAASC will limit web access to 

the SPRC by password authorization. The web hosted report will contain documentation about 

the report, as well as drill down capability. DAASC has completed the draft report. The 

ACTION: MILSTRAP Administrator will provide the SPRC necessary information to access 

the draft report so they can review the report and make recommendations for change if needed. 

(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 
6

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. DISCUSSION: This topic 

was tabled to SPRC meeting 03-1. At SPRC 03-1, the JGMM subgroup for Supply Support to 

Inter-Service Depot Maintenance will brief on the activities of their group and identify 

potential impacts on to AMCLs 12 and 43. 

(5) RFID ADC 12, Revised Procedures for Logistics Reassignment

(LR). BACKGROUND: ADC 12 revises LR procedures to ensure accountability and control 

of materiel in support of DoD 4140.1-R policy which places accountability for wholesale assets 

in storage with the distribution depot. Under ADC 12, the losing inventory manager (LIM) 

transmits new Document Identifier (DI) Code A5W/A5Y, LR Materiel Release Orders (MROs) 

to the distribution depot. The LR MROs direct the depot to record, under gaining inventory 

manager (GIM) ownership, assets being logistically reassigned to the GIM. The depot 

responds to the LIM with an LR materiel release confirmation, or LR materiel release denial. 

The depot provides a new LR Receipt transaction the GIM. These procedures support 

automated processing to effect record balance quantity updates. Assets are "shipped/receipted 

in place" rather than physically moved. This change provides the audit trail necessary for 

maintaining the accountable balance at the distribution depots during LR. At SPRC meeting 

02-1, Components were tasked to communicate ADC 12 requirement to modernization offices 

to ascertain possible implementation date. DISCUSSION: With possible exception of DLA 

BSM, Components are unable to establish a date for implementation in modernized systems at 

this time. Request was deemed premature. ACTION: Components should assure 

modernization offices are aware of the ADC 12 requirements, and that they will require joint 

DoD implementation.

(6) 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 to accommodate the outside date, 

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 required to support the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Military Munitions Rule, which was effective August 12, 1997. DISCUSSION: Army 

confirmed that they can implement at any time. Navy provided an updated implementation 

date of February 2003. Marine Corps indicated they can implement concurrent with Army’s 

date. DLA indicated DSS can implement at any time, and did not believe there would be any 

DRMS impact but expected verification soon. Air Force had not yet determined an 

implementation date. DLMSO recommended that Air Force strive to meet the Navy date as 

implementation of this change is necessary for DoD compliance with the EPA Military 

Munitions Rule. DLMSO asked the Components to consider whether Army, Navy, Marine 

Corps, and DLA could implement in February 2003 without Air Force if necessary. The 

answer will depend on whether the other Services will have logistics transaction interface with 

Air Force on SCC V assets. If they will, staggered implementation may not be possible as the 

Air Force system would not be able to process SCC V. ACTION: Request Air Force

provide DLMSO their response to the RFID by October 10, 2002. Request Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps, discuss with their munitions system point of contact, whether ADC 
7

14 can be implemented jointly by all except Air Force in February 2003, with Air Force to 

follow at a later date in the adverse event that Air Force provides a distant implementation 

date. 

(7) ADC 57, Enhanced Edits for the Required Delivery Date (RDD) 

Field in Requisitions (PDC 65). BACKGROUND: This change provides clarification and 

revision of business rules relating to the use of the RDD field and its compatibility with the 

priority designator (PD). It includes provisions for DAAS or the ICP to edit of the requisition 

RDD and PD fields to ensure incorrect entries are identified and appropriately modified prior 

forwarding/processing the requisition. Under most conditions, DAAS or the ICP will provide 

supply status notification of requisition modification whenever a customer PD/RDD entry is 

blanked out or modified based upon prescribed rules. Additionally, demand sequencing is 

revised to eliminate providing precedence to requisitions with an RDD/RAD earlier than the 

computed SDD or containing an expedited transportation signal. DISCUSSION: DLA 

reported implementation of this change. DAAS implemented subsequent to the meeting on or 

about September 23, 2002. MILSTRIP publication of this change is incorporated in Interim 

Change 02-4 which was disseminated to Committee members on September 1, 2002. 

ACTION: DLA alerted the Committee to numerous inquiries received from customers who 

are not aware of the revised edit and cannot determine exactly what has transpired from their 

status transactions. [The AE_, Supply Status, reflects only a multi-purpose BK status and 

cannot show the revised RDD because the date of the status transaction (rather than the RDD)

appears in rp 62-64.] There is no remedial action suggested other than to advise customers 

and customerservice representatives how this edit works.

(8) PDC 79, Revision to DLSS/DLMS Requisition/Referral Order 

for Owner-Directed Disposition of Component-Owned Stocks, Centrally Managed and 

Maintained in Commingled Storage by DLA BACKGROUND: This change modifies the 

requisition and referral order format and associated procedures applicable when a Component 

has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with DLA regarding Component-owned 

stock which is to be centrally managed/stored by DLA. DISCUSSION: The PRC Chair 

emphasized that these procedures are provided to document an existing process. The original 

impetus stemmed from a request by USSAMA to accommodate their data requirements 

related to issuing war reserves from DLA depots as they converted from DLSS to DLMS. 

The resulting SDR does not address all the interface issues. Further, DLMSO recognizes that 

there are policy questions concerning the improperly recorded ownership of depot stocks on 

the accountable record. The PRC questioned the ongoing requirement for this process since 

the procedures where developed prior to the transfer of Component depots to DLA. The 

desired benefit of stock rotation would be available in the current environment without the 

added complexity imposed by this process. ACTION: The Joint Physical Inventory 

Working Group (JPIWG) will review policy and procedures related to this process during 

their September 24, 2002 meeting. The JPIWG will document concerns and/or suggest 

corrective action as a separate change action. The Components were requested to asses the 

volume and type of items involved in these MOAs and report back to DLMSO NLT 30 days 

from the date of this memorandum. (Subsequent to the meeting, the USAF confirmed that 

they have not initiated such an MOA. The USN does have an extremely limited usage. 

Although the number of items has been cut back, the USA has retained the MOA with DLA 

for war reserves/DEPMEDs assembly items.) In the absence of confirmation that this process 
8

will be discontinued in the near future, DLMSO will modify the wording to further reduce 

“commingled” terminology and issue an approved change documenting the current process. If 

necessary, corrective action for interfaces and accountable record to be addressed separately.

(9 ) PDC 84, Narrative Message Reject for Blank Quantity Field in 

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Transactions (DI Code DRA/DRB). 

BACKGROUND: MRA transactions submitted with invalid quantity fields are of limited 

value and undermine the intent of the DoD MRA process. Further, American National 

Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee (ANSI ASC) X12 syntax edits require a 

valid quantity entry in the 527R implementation convention for MRA. Since the quantity is a 

required entry in MILSTRAP DI Code DRA/DRB, PDC 84 proposed DAASC rejection of 

MRA transactions received with an invalid quantity using a narrative message indicating the 

quantity was invalid and the MRA should be corrected and resubmitted. DISCUSSION: 

The SPRC discussed this change and approved the DAASC recommendation to expand the 

narrative message rejects to include quantities which contain alphas or special characters. 

MILSTRAP does not authorize reversal of MRA transactions, so entry of a special character 

as a reversal indicator is not allowed. The SPRC discussed the use of the MILSTRAP DI 

Code DZG, Reject transaction in lieu of narrative message reject. Since MILSTRAP 

procedures are primarily wholesale, the DZG reject was not programmed for use at Service 

retail activities, with the exception of Air Force. In light of the inability to change legacy 

retail systems to process DI Code DZG, the SPRC agreed to the narrative message reject for 

this purpose. The MILSTRAP Administrator noted that narrative message rejects are 

presently used at retail by MILSTRIP. Further, correction of the source of the invalid quantity 

field entries will eliminate the need for the MRA narrative message rejects. The generation of 

MRA transaction with an invalid quantity field suggests a system problem which the Service 

MILSTRAP/SPRC representatives should be investigating/correcting. To this end, DLMSO 

provided the SPRC with a DAASC listing reflecting all DoDAACs which generated MRAs 

with invalid quantities in August, and advised the SPRC representatives to contact DAASC 

directly for more detailed information at the transaction level as needed for their investigation. 

ACTION: Components are to investigate the source of the MRA transactions with invalid 

quantities and take corrective action. DLMSO released ADC 74, Narrative Message Rejects

for Invalid Quantity in MRA transactions, September 17, 2002.

(10) PDC 87, Corrected Rules for Signal Code Usage on Disposal 

Turn-in Documents (DTIDs). BACKGROUND: This proposal revises MILSTRIP 

documentation to conform to current DTID processing rules at the Defense Reutilization and 

Marketing Office (DRMO). It authorizes the flexibility to use multiple signal codes and 

provides specific rules for their use. DISCUSSION: After reviewing the discrepancy 

between current documentation and the DRMO implementation, the Committee concurred with 

the need for the procedural documentation revision and recommended additional changes, e.g., 

inclusion of specific corresponding changes in the disposal release order instructions. 

ACTION: DLMSO modify the proposal and release for formal coordination. The Finance 

Chair will investigate whether there is a need to further explain the billing interface. When the

resulting bill contains a Signal Code B, the bill-to office identificationwill be reflected in the 

supplemental address field.
9

b. Financial Impact of Non-Customer-Generated Requisition 

Rejection/Cancellation. BACKGROUND: During the SPRC 02-2 meeting, the Army 

reported $60M in losses due to de-obligation of requisition funding subsequent to 

cancellation/rejection. The problem was perceived to be caused by MILSTRIP procedures 

which dictate strict rules for rejecting/canceling nonconforming requisitions and then require 

resubmission of cancelled requisitions under a new document number. Under Army 

procedures, when the fiscal year changes during this process, the funds cannot be reused and 

are lost. DISCUSSION: The Army indicated that the value of lost funding was substantially 

greater than initially reported and that they continue to research the causes and corrective 

actions. An internal Army problem is causing some of the rejects and must be addressed by 

the Army: Under single stock fund Army customers code their requisitions as free issues, 

however when referred outside DLA, the Army automated system applies the appropriate 

signal code/fund code information. When the modifier is submitted directly to DLA by the 

customer, it retains the original free issue coding and is rejected. One MILSTRIP issue was 

clarified as an inconsistent use of the Status Code CX on requisition modifiers, vice the 

normally used D7 status. The text associated with the CX indicates that a customer must 

resubmit on a new document number; the D7 does not. ACTION: Army will continue to

review internal implementation of requisition processing and research extensive delays in 

resubmission which may be the main problem. DLMSO will issue a proposed change to 

correct CX status processing so that the standard status D7 will be applied to requisition 

modifiers. 

c. DLMS Training. DLIS development of a DLMS web-based training 

(WBT) option based upon the original three-day program is nearing completion. DLMSO 

will advise when available for general access (expected by November 1, 2002).

d. DLMS XML Schemas. DLMSO reported that DLMS schemas have been 

prepared using a software tool that converts the DLMS ANSI EDI transaction to XML format. 

DAASC mapping/testing must be accomplished prior to formal release, which will include 

posting to DLIS and DISA repositories. 

e. Global Transportation Network (GTN) Data Integrity. Mr. Robert 

Loviska, provided background information and requested SPRC assistance in clarifying or 

correcting data problems stemming from MILSTRIP transaction feeds to the GTN. Some 

specific clarification was provided; others will require further research:

? Missing TCN/partial TCN/invalid TCN: Missing TCNs are primarily the result of local 

delivery and customer pick-up (modes 9 and X). MILSTRIP anticipates a TCN, while the 

Components have apparently interpreted the TCN as unnecessary. DLMSO has requested 

clarification from DTR policy. Causes for partial and invalid TCNs must be further 

researched.

? Missing or invalid POE: This is a Component compliance problem. Request PRC 

members contact appropriate offices to request assistance in researching and correcting the 

problem.

? Special character in quantity field: The special character is a reversal code which is only 

authorized in specific MILSTRAP transactions. MILSTRIP does not use reversal codes. 
10

Request Navy assistance to research cause of AE1 with reversal codes (example: 

SP075096C2833)

? Outdated AS_ format: The current format for the AS_ is provided in MILSTRIP. The 

samples provided identified the status for map requisitions which employ a legacy system 

which will be replaced during modernization. Corrections to the AS_ format may not be 

feasible. Request DLA confirm.

? Alpha character in NSN field: DLMSO provided specific guidance to help GTN 

determine what type of stock number entry is provided based upon the DI Code. NSNs do 

not include alpha characters, but many other types of stock identification do. It will be 

impossible for GTN to always know the type provided based upon current rules.

? Invalid codes in A0_/AM_: 

o Advice Code: Requirements for valid advice codes are specified in 

MILSTRIP appendix AP2.15. (DoD codes are listed; Component 

supplementation for internal use is authorized. GTN will not have specific 

definitions for Component assigned codes.) 

o Signal Code: Requirements for valid signal codes are specified in MILSTRIP 

appendix AP2.10. (Codes = A, B, C, D, W, J, K, L, M, X; no others are valid.)

o Demand Code: Requirements for valid demand codes are specified in 

MILSTRIP appendix AP2.8. (Codes = I, N, O, P, R, S; no others are valid.)

? Multi-use/Component-use fields: Some rules for specific data contents on multi-use fields 

is provided in the applicable manual. However, it may not be possible for GTN to know 

which situation applies. In some instance, MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP allow Components to 

designate appropriate entries. For many years, DLMSO has asked the Components to 

identify their coding requirements. DLMSO would like Component unique data elements 

to be adopted under the DLMS. DLMSO enlisted the help of the Logistics Management

Institute (LMI) to research Component uniques. Results of the LMI study are available at 

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

? DRA/DRB vs. D6_: The DRA/DRB is the current format. Authorization was given for 

DAAS to convert Component D6_ transactions to DRAs to assist Components with 

delayed implementations. GTN should only be using the DRA/DRB transactions (also 

including the D6_ would result in a duplication.)

f. Military Equipment. Mr. Ken Schreier and Mr. Tom Ruckdashel briefed 

the Committee on changes in accounting practices and reporting requirements for military 

equipment which became effective October 1, 2002. Accounting treatment for military 

equipment will be the same as general PP&E. The current emphasis is on developing a 

standard approach and methodologies based upon automated data gathering techniques. Impact 

upon the DLSS/DLMS processes has not been determined at this time.
11

g. DLMS Military Assistance Program Address Code (MAPAC) Mapping 

Issues. DLA BSM reported problems processing DLMS transactions using the data content as 

mapped by DAAS from the original DLSS transaction. An adjustment was made by DAAS 

(outside the PRC) which provided some assistance to the BSM effort, but a new problem was 

encountered and brought to the attention of DLMSO. Although resolved just prior to the 

meeting to BSM satisfaction, there were some remaining issues which DLMSO considered 

appropriate to share with the PRC. The new problem stemmed from an internal SAP 

requirement for a Sold-To address, which may not be available when customers orders are 

shipped to a freight forwarder and the MAPAF does not contain a Mark-For. The resolution 

required DAAS to provide the clear-text country representative address from the MAPAD, 

Section B, via an automated feed. The committee reviewed construction of the MAPAC (at 

best confusing) and requested clarification of the DAAS mapping reference to A0 in rp 46-47. 

After a history search turned up no valid MAPACs with such coding, DAASC decided to 

remove this reference. Although FMS requisitions are processing, there remains a concern 

with the improper references/qualifiers employed in the DLMS Supplement. Currently the 

Ordered-By MAPAC is not a true MAPAC construction. Further, the discussion highlighted 

similar mapping concerns due to the selected qualifier used for the requisition’s From address. 

DLMSO will draft a proposal to improve the terminology and mapping. 

h. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) IPT. DLMSO provided an 

update on the status of the PQDR IPT effort which is coordinating/developing an automated 

approach to sharing PQDR information across Components. Based upon J-6 

recommendation, the existing DOD Past Performance Automated Information System (now 

PPIRS) provides the support for the data sharing. The application architecture uses a hub and 

spoke approach employing a central server and multiple remote servers. The remote servers 

will have access to the Components PQDR databases and will incorporate holding tables for

inbound and outbound data. The NAVSEA Portsmouth office has the programming lead. 

They are developing XML formats for shared communications. In addition to sharing 

PQDRs, the system will include both standard and ad hoc query/report capability, made 

possible by accessing Component databases through the holding tables to gather required 

information. Testing of the system is scheduled for December 2002. The PRC voiced concern 

that DAAS, as the preferred provider and hub for logistics data exchange services, may not 

have been appropriately considered during the technology solution phase. Additionally, the 

Committee wanted assurance that DLMSO will oversee XML transaction development as the 

Executive Agent under DoD Directive 8190.1. DLMSO will continue to participate in the 

PQDR IPT and investigate standardization and adoption of new XML formats under the 

DLMS.
i. Contractor Access To Chwrnment Supply Sources. Contractor-furnished

materiel (CFM) requisitions placed via DOD EMA1.L for corporate credit card payment were

being trapped by the DAASC GFM edit and rcjecled with Status Code “CL.” This was

bccausc thcsc CTM rcquisitivna wtrc configu~-cd to look like GTM I-equisitions salt directly to

the DLA ICP without coding to indicate thal the requisition had been reviewed by the

appropriate MCA first. The construct of‘thc (‘f:M requisitions is predetermmed based upon

DUD EMHIJ. rules which include rhe assigning of the EMAIL UODAAC to rhc

supplemental address field when the customer elects to pay by corporate credit card or

Government purchase card. The DoD EMALI. [ xoaranl requested assistance from the PRC

to modify the business rules so that the C:l,M tranractlons could process succcrsfully. ‘l’he

C’ornmittce discussed and approved development of‘ a new edit table at DAAS that would

allow fbr verification of authorized CFM contractors and use existing GFM processing

techniques to handle the transactions with no impact to Component systems. DLMSO agreed

to draft a DLMS change proposal (PIIC 88) to modify MILSTRIP and establish the DAAS

edit table. Subscqucnt to the mcetiny. the DOD HMALL program also agreed to adopt the

ancillary information associated with (iPM requisitions so that these may process correctly

under MILSTRIP rules.

j Next Meeting. The SPRC 03-l meeting is scheduled for January 28-30,

2003. ACTION: Once again, the Navy is requested to coordinate internally to ensure that the

long-promised overview of their modernization program will he provided at this meeting.

ELLEN HILERT

Supply PRC Chair

APPROVE:

JAMES A.

Dilrclw, DI.MSO

1 2