IN REPLY 

REFER TO DLMSO 

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-622 1 

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION 

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

Committee (SPRC) Meeting 07-01, May 16-1 8,2007 

The attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PRC Meeting (07-01) are forwarded for 

your information and appropriate action. The next meeting will be scheduled at a later date. 

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

Hilert, 703-767-0676, or e-mail: Ellen.Hilert0,dla.mil; Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, 703-767-0677 

or e-mail: Mary.Jane.Johnson@,dla.mil; and Mr. Bob Hamrnond, 703-767-21 17, or e-mail 

Robert.Harnmond(ii>,dla.mil. ** ONALD C. PIPP 

Director 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards OEce 

Attachment 

DUSD(L&MR)SCI 

SDR Committee 

Attendees 
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 2206Q.622fune 29,2007 

IN REPLY DLMSO 

REFER TO 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

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

Committee (PRC) Meeting 07-0 1, May 16- 18,2007 

Purpose: Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted the subject 

meeting at the DLA Headquarters Complex, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Specific discussion topics are 

noted below. A list of attendees is shown at Enclosure 1. All meeting handouts and briefing material 

are available on the Supply PRC Web page (refer to the meeting Agenda): htt~://www.dla.mil/i6/dlmso/Procrains/Committees/Supply/supplySDR.asp. 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert, Supply PRC Chair, and Ms. Mary Jane 

Johnson, MILSTRAP Administrator, facilitated the discussion. Ms. Hilert began the meeting 

providing the attendees with information regarding changes in procedures with regard to new 

Information Assurance (IA) requirements. These include no personal names included on DLMS 

changes; instead there will be the office name and a phone number. There will be two versions of the 

Project Code List, one will be provided via an e-mail with a digitized signature and the one posted to 

the DLMSO Web site. However, there will be different rules on how this can be viewed depending on 

if a person is viewing the web from a .mil address versus a .gov address. For Official Use Only 

(FOUO) will now be on any documents that list a person's name and phone number. Ms. Hilert also ,' 

told the com~nittee that the MILSTRIP Manual has been updated and is in the formal publication 

cycle. In the interim, the unpublished version has been posted to the DLMSO Web site manuals page: 

http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/elibrary/Manuals/MILSTRIP/Default.asp. 

(a) Requisitioning Under Performance Based Logistics (PBL)/Cataloging NSN for 

multiple supply sources. This discussion was a Video Tele-Conference (VTC) between the PRC, and 

the Federal Cataloging Committee (FCC). BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Total Life Cycle Systems 

Management (TLCSM) Executive Council identified the need for a systems solution to address the 

issue of common item support where one NSN is used on more than one platform and requisitions may 

be satisfied by either the DOD Source of Supply (SOS) or a PBL provider. In some scenarios, 

duplicative cataloguing actions came about as a stop-gap measure to establish the PBL provider as the 

SOS. This allowed direct routing of the electronic requisition to the PBL provider. The Supply PRC 

and the FCC have studied automated solutions that would accommodate cataloging NSNs in 

association with a PBL SOS. However, a solution that will allow requisitions to flow to the 

appropriate SOS with minimal disruption of existing legacy process while eliminating the multiple 

NSNs assignment of the same item has remained elusive. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tim Ondracek, DLIS, 

briefed the SPRC on two alternatives to allow for the management of a single item by both the SOS 

and a PBL Provider. The first alternative would allow for multiple SOSs identified in the FLIS. 

Customers would order through existing systems and DAASC would route based on specific weapons 

systems identifier codes in the requisition to the appropriate SOS. When applicable, requisitions 

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper 
2

would need to identify the weapon system in order to route to the appropriate PBL provided. The 

other alternative would be to assign multiple NSNs to the same item based on the SOS (using the part 

number and CAGE to distinguish among the multiple cataloging entities). This would allow 

requisitions to be routed to the correct SOS based on the NSN. This option is preferred by the Joint 

Strike Fighter Program Management Office (JSFPMO) who was represented at the meeting and 

strongly believes unique/separate NSNs are required to support their project. A third alternative was 

suggested during the meeting which would require users to enter the Routing Identifier of the PBL 

provider in their requisitions when the PBL provider is known (although this would only be a partial 

solution, since the PBL provider is not always known). All of the options discussed require changes to 

the FLIS, DAASC, and Components systems, with the option for routing by weapon system requiring 

extensive modification. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Debra Bennett from OUSD (AT&L) SCI, indicated 

that the multiple NSN alternative is not a viable solution. ACTION: Another meeting to specifically 

discuss the unique requirements of the JSFPMO will be scheduled to include representatives from the 

JSFPMO, DLMSO, the FCC, and OUSD (tentatively scheduled for July 19, 2007). 

 (b) Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Report and MRA 

Implementation Status. BACKGROUND: MRA Procedures were initially developed under 

Joint AMCLs 11 (MILSTRAP) and 15 (MILSTRIP) to provide a DOD automated, closed-loop 

system to monitor for receipt of shipments of DOD and GSA wholesale stock, which are issued 

from on-hand assets or procured for direct vendor delivery. MILSTRAP also requires that 

Components establish a management evaluation program which monitors and evaluates MRA 

requirements. In order to assist in this evaluation, an MRA Management Information Report was 

developed by DAASC using SPRC guidelines. The report is to be provided via electronic means 

to members of the SPRC. It will be the responsibility of each member of the SPRC to analyze 

the report to identify potential deficiencies in their Component operations or procedures 

contributing to breakdowns in internal controls for intransit wholesale stock. DISCUSSION: 

Ms. Mary Jane Johnson told the group that SPRC discussion of the MRA Report and Component 

MRA implementation status has been tabled for the past few years and her intent was to provide 

the group with an overview of the report as well as have the Components provide the latest 

implementation status. 

 (1) MRA Report. DLMSO has reinvigorated review of the draft MRA 

report with a goal towards identifying any needed changes and/or improvements, and finalizing 

the report for SPRC use. Mr. Bob Vitko and Ms. Brenda Meadows, DLMSO, have taken on this 

tasking and they provided the group with an overview of the report which included a preliminary 

analysis of some of the potential problems and recommendations. Mr Vitko indicated they 

would be in touch with the SPRC representatives as the report review continues and questions 

surface. Ms. Johnson advised that if any SPRC representative would like access to the report 

during this review time, to please advise; otherwise they can wait until the DLMSO 

review/recommendations are complete and review at that time. ACTION: Mr. Vitko and Ms. 

Meadows will do an in-depth review of the report and prepare recommendations for the SPRC 

consideration 

 (2) Component MRA Implementation Issues. Open implementation 

issues were discussed as follows: Army MRA Quantity Problem. Army programmed their 

Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) to cite the quantity received rather than the 

missing quantity in the DI Code DRA/DRB when less than the shipped quantity is received. 

This approach conflicted with approved procedures. Mr. Ron Surber indicated that SARSS was 
3

changed in 2002 to correct this problem, thereby closing this issue. Army MILSTRIP ASH 

Pseudo Shipment Transaction. 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. The Army reported at the SPRC meeting 05-01 that AMCL 15 had been 

implemented, however, additional research was requested to verify that ASH is working 

correctly for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). ACTION: DAASC confirm that the Army ICP 

system is sending ASHs to ILCOs. Air Force MRA Quantity Problem. Air Force initially 

programmed their system to report MRA (DI Code DRA/DRB) showing a discrepancy indicator 

code F, indicating a quantity missing for materiel that has in fact not yet been shipped. The Air 

Force SPRC representative indicated at a previous meeting that this was corrected in March 

2005, thereby closing this issue. Navy Overall MRA Submission Rates. In the past, it was 

determined that the Navy’s overall MRA submission rate was very low, indicating that MRA 

procedures had not been fully implemented. Navy stated several years ago that because legacy 

systems were being replaced by ERPs, Navy would not apply resources to change legacy 

systems to fully implement. Rather, implementation would be accomplished through the ERPs. 

PREVIOUS ACTION (SPRC meeting 05-1). Navy was asked to confirm that the MRA 

process will be covered in the ERP for all retail systems responsible for generating MRAs. In 

addition DUSD(L&MR)SCI requested that the Navy provide a list of legacy systems that had 

implemented the MRA process as well as those that should be generating MRAs, but do not. 

This list has not been provided. ACTION: Navy provide a list of legacy systems that have 

implemented the MRA process as well as those that should be generating MRAs, but do not. 

Request information be provided to DLMSO no later than July 31, 2007. 

 

 (c) EMALL Overview. Ms. Sheila Rayburn, DLIS, representing the EMALL 

Program Office, provided an overview of the program. Ms. Rayburn indicated that EMALL is a 

full service eCommerce site which strives to be the single entry point for purchasers to find and 

acquire off-the-shelf finished goods and services from the commercial marketplace and 

government sources (DLA and GSA). The system is fully integrated in the DLA Enterprise 

Business System (EBS), providing order status and supportability analysis on all orders placed 

with DLA. DISCUSSION: Ms. Rayburn indicated that there is no commitment of funds 

through EMALL, however, they expect to develop a Funds Control Module in the 3rd quarter of 

FY 07 that will provide an interface with the Army financial systems. (A proposed DLMS 

change is currently under development to support this process change.) In addition, Ms. 

Rayburn discussed an FMS pilot through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) 

portal which is an initiative that will be done in FY 07. Ms. Hilert indicated she would like to 

know more of the specifics of the pilot and would like it coordinated with the Services. She also 

emphasized that all changes to EMALL that affect the DLMS processes should be coordinated 

through DLMSO and the SPRC. ACTION: DOD EMALL provide to DLMSO specifics of the 

FMS pilot. ACTION: DAASC and DoD EMALL team will work together to review DAASC 

reject notices associated with EMALL requisitions to determine if systemic corrective action can 

be taken.

 (d) Report on DLA/Army Monthly Issue Resolution Meeting. BACKGROUND: 

Mr. John Ampela, DLA J-335, briefed the committee on the high level Senior Executive monthly 

meetings between DLA and the Army regarding interface issues between the EBS and the Army’s 

Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). These meetings began in December 2006 and include many 

topics which have applicability to all of the Services. DISCUSSION: Mr. Ampela and Ms. Susan 
4

Fox, DLA J-83, reviewed the issues from last month’s meeting (refer to briefing slides; not all issues 

identifed below). 

 (1) Supply-related Issues. A current priority issue is the further 

implementation of the lateral redistribution under the total asset visibility (TAV) concept, which 

requires three changes to EBS before further implementation with the Army and the other Services. 

Another issue being addressed is over/under shipments without appropriate status, which may cause 

follow-on transactions to reject, creates bills that don’t match obligations, and unnecessary followups. 

Headquarters DLA is reviewing procedures from a policy standpoint, as well as making some changes 

in the Distribution Standard System (DSS). Ms. Hilert said that all Services could be experiencing 

some of the same problems reported by the Army. In a related discussion, Mr. Bob Vitko indicated 

that he would like to see the reason for DAASC rejects when there is no specific reject code, but 

rather a message indicating that the transactions has been rejected. He suggested that DAASC develop 

a link on VLIPS that would allow the reject message to be displayed. ACTION: DAASC determine 

if able to provide a link on VLIPS to allow the reject message to be displayed and provide current list 

of reject messages. The Components should review current status codes discussed to ensure that both 

their modernization systems and legacy systems are utilizing them properly. 

 (2) Pricing. Ms. Fox discussed issues related to DLA notifying customers 

when significant changes in item pricing occur. DLA established a Pricing IPT in December 2006 to 

review pricing disconnects between the Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) and EBS; 

determine pricing discrepancy root causes, and look at short and long-term opportunities for 

improvement. The biggest disconnect appears to be associated with the current DOD policy regarding 

the effective date of FLIS price changes. Although the DOD Financial Management Regulation 

allows for out-of-cycle price changes for things like first time buys, price challenges, etc., the effective 

date policy causes item prices to be different in EBS and FLIS for approximately 48 to 78 days 

depending on the price change. The IPT has taken action to update the EBS job aids to better explain 

when price updates should be made immediately and when they can be aligned with the FLIS price 

update; what the rule is for effective dating when an out-of-cycle price changes occur, and when price 

updates can’t be executed by FLIS, for example during brown-out periods. In addition, some pricing 

disconnects occurred during conversion to EBS and have now been corrected. J-8 is working toward 

providing an estimated price in FLIS for Acquisition Advice Code (AAC) L if the item has been active 

within the last two years. Planned action for the IPT include; looking at active items and developing 

better estimated price; loading SAP standard price in SAP; determining if FLIS can upload new AAC 

L estimates in the standard price; notifying customers that AAC L item prices are estimates and 

develop a System Change Request to provide some automation of the process in FY 08 

 (e) New Procedures for Cancellation of Existing Order Containing a Deleted 

DODAAC. Mr. John Ampela, DLA J-335, presented a talking paper to assess SPRC support for 

establishment of this edit. Mr. Ampela explained that currently, according to MILSTRIP procedures, 

when an activity has a cancelled DODAAC, all requisitions for that activity are canceled using status 

code “BQ” (cancelled based on deleted DODAAC). However, MILSTRIP does not specify that 

requisitions with cancelled Ship-To/Bill-To DODAACs should also be cancelled. DISCUSSION: 

Mr. Ampela is considering a DLMS proposed change for a new process that would trigger cancellation 

of requisitions for deleted DODAACs using either status code CX (invalid ship to, bill to) or status 

code BQ. Ms. B.J. Sprint, Marine Corps, expressed concern because in many cases when a DODAAC 

is cancelled, it is because the activity that ordered the material has been relocated and another activity 

will be deployed to that same area and will need the material. This same situation applies to the Army 
5

and Air Force. Mr. Ampela countered that MILSTRIP procedures call for these requisitions to be 

modified to carry the replacement DODAAC if the material is still needed. During the discussion, Mr. 

Ampela indicated he was working on the design for mass cancellation processing in EBS. Ms. Hilert 

encouraged use of DLMS enhancements that could establish improved functionality for this process. 

ACTION: Mr. Ampela will submit a PDC based upon his talking paper and SPRC 

recommendations. 

 

 (f) New DAASC Edit on Ship-To and Bill-To Defense Activity Address Code 

(DODAAC) in the Material Release Order. BACKGROUND: Mr. John Ampela provided a 

second talking paper to extend current DAASC edits that are applied to inbound AO_, AM_, and AT_ 

transactions to the material release order as well. Currently DAASC rejects the transactions using a 

CX (Activity identified in the requisition is not authorized as a requisitioning or bill-to activity) reject 

status code. The proposal would also reject the MRO (MILSTRIP A5_) using the same status code. 

DISCUSSION: There was some discussion regarding the viability of this proposal. Mr. Ampela will 

take comments provided by the SPRC under advisement. 

 (g) Procedures for Monitoring for Requisition Priority Abuse: BACKGROUND: 

OSD has directed DAASC to validate the Force Activity Designator (F/AD) I usage through the 

requisitioning process. DAASC maintains an edit table which lists all activities authorized to use F/AD 

I which is provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). DAASC will edit PD 01, 04 and 11 requisitions 

to ensure that F/AD I requisitions identify an authorized activity in the document number or 

supplemental address field. Priority Designator (PD) 01 requisitions that fail this edit will be identified 

by DAASC as suspected abuse and subsequent investigation without interruption of normal requisition 

processing. PD 04 and 11 requisitions that fail this edit will be downgraded. Those requisitions 

identified as suspected abuses as well as those downgraded by DAASC will be written to the 

Unauthorized Priority Designator Assignment Report. DISCUSSION: Ms. Debra Bennett, OSD, 

indicated that abusing the priority system is a readiness issue and impacts transportation costs. She also 

said that it was time for another meeting with all the Services to emphasize the importance of following 

proper procedures when assigning priorities to requisitions. Ms. Hilert said that it is the responsibility of 

each Service PRC member or their designated representative to monitor the DAAS report for abuse and 

take corrective action. There was a discussion on how the downgrade rules could be implemented in 

EMALL. One suggestion was to use a pop-up screen to alert customers that they must be authorized for 

a F/AD I when PD 01, 04, or 11 are selected. Mr. Chuck Garvey, GSA, reported that the GSA internet 

ordering process does not have access to an authorized F/AD I list. The current process to identify and 

confirm the activities is manual, time consuming, and not always effective due to lack of response. GSA 

would like access to the list of DOD DODAAC that are authorized to use F/AD I. ACTION: Mr. 

Garvey will prepare a PDC to apply downgrade and monitoring business rules to GSA internet ordering. 

SPRC members are to ensure that a responsible person is designated to monitor DAAS reports. 

DLMSO will take action to re-activate the DLMS change proposal currently on hold which would 

support identification of the authorized F/AD I activity for requisitioning under DLMS. 

 (h) Army Off-Line Requisitioning IPT. The Army IPT lead was unable to attend this 

meeting and no update was provided. Refer to previous SPRC meeting minutes, dated December 21, 

2006, and PDC 266, Off Line Requisition Processing for Funds Availability Checks, below. 

 (i) DLMS Changes. Discussion included a number of DLMS changes recently 

approved, in staffing, or under development. 
6

 (1) ADC 228, New Status Code for Free Issue Post-Post Orders. 

BACKGROUND: Standard requisitions submitted to DLA for free issue (identified by Signal Code 

D or M) are validated to ensure that the customer is authorized. However, requisitions processed on a 

post-post basis bypass the standard edits. This may result in material being shipped as free issue 

where reimbursement should have been provided. The recently approved change supports validation 

of post-post non-reimbursable requisitions and establishes appropriate procedures when such 

requisitions fail to pass validation criteria. Since the validation is subsequent to shipment in a postpost scenario, the new process is required to notify the customer that the free issue will not be honored 

and that appropriate billing will follow. DISCUSSION: Requisitions which fail free issue validation 

subsequent to material release (post-post requisitions/issue) may be handled as funded requirements. 

In this case, the source of supply will furnish a new status code DT (Free issue denied; either the 

complete or partial quantity of a post-post requirement is not authorized for free issue fund code 

and/or signal code corrected as noted). This will alert eligible status recipients that the post-post 

requirement is not authorized for free issue and to adjust fund obligation records as material will be 

billed to the requisitioner. ACTION: EBS will implement this change in September 2007. 

Component modernization systems should ensure that they are able to recognize this new status code. 

Where legacy systems are unable to adopt the new code, DAAS VLIPS may be used to check status. 

 (2) PDC 255, IUID and RFID in Shipment Status Material Returns. 

BACKGROUND: This proposed change updates the DLMS Supplement 856R, Shipment Status 

Material Returns, to carry IUID information and passive RFID tag information. The PDC is a 

planning tool for establishing techniques for accommodating IUID and RFID tag data within 

transactional exchanges under the DLMS to support business process improvements. This change also 

establishes authorized implementation guidance for DLMS enhancements such as transportation 

numbers and carrier identification. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert explained that the 856R was migrated 

to the higher version to remain consistent with the X12 4030 DLMS Shipment Status 856S, which also 

carries passive RFID and is intended to support IUID. The existing implemented 4010 version will 

continue to be supported until Components migrate to the higher level. ACTION: Component 

responses to the PDC are to be provided. 

 (3) PDC 265, DLMS Material Release Confirmation: Secondary 

Transportation Number, Carrier Identification and Port of Embarkation (POE). 

BACKGROUND: This change provides guidance for implementation of multiple enhancements to the 

DLMS Supplement 945A, Material Release Advise, for use as a Material Release Confirmation. The 

change specifically requests implementation of an enhancement identified during the development of the 

DLMS for a secondary transportation number, such as the small package carrier number, and carrier 

identification when other than United States Postal Service, by Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC). It 

also provides clarification on how DLMS handles identification of the Port of Embarkation (POE) (for 

air or water) or the Consolidation and Containerization Point (CCP) which are mapped to the same 

record positions in the MILS and may not be identifiable by code characteristics. Implementation of this 

change will permit the Inventory Control Point (ICP)/Source of Supply (SoS) to provide the enhanced 

data content when responding to customer requests for status. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert explained 

that this change complements the previously approved ADC 223, which established similar data 

requirements for the 856S. She asked Components if ICPs would need access to the full carrier address 

or if the SCAC/name will be sufficient. ACTION: Components provide comments to the proposed 

change. 
7

 (4) Draft PDC 266, Off Line Requisition Processing for Funds Availability 

Checks (Finance/Supply). BACKGROUND: PDC 266 is under development to address the lack of a 

funds availability edit identified by Army audit as the impetus for the Off-Line Requisitioning IPT. 

Off-line requisition systems have been established by DLA and GSA to allow customer requisitioning 

capabilities using the latest technology. These systems did not include necessary interfaces with the 

requisitioning Service. The lack of such an interface with the Army’s standard supply and finance 

systems caused problems including bills arriving without prior obligations; lack of supply accountability 

since there were no due-ins built into the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS); not recording 

demands to assist in determining proper stockage levels and building future budgets; and a lack of 

control over authorized users. This change requests an interface be established between the various 

offline systems and the Army Funds Control Module (FCM) so that fund availability can be checked 

before processing the requisition. DISCUSSION: This proposed change will be applicable to 

MILSTRIP requisitions billed through MILSBILLS. The change requires an interface with the Army’s 

FCM while the Army customer is using the DLA or GSA offline systems to create the requisition. The 

funds availability check will be a two-way interface via web call. The amount of data transmitted 

should be kept to a minimum for nearly instantaneous response. Processing of the requisition will occur 

only after FCM has determined that funding is available. The goal is to establish the new format as a 

standard for DLMS use by other Components in such a way that it will comply with Standard Financial 

Information Structure (SFIS) guidance to the degree possible at this time. ACTION: DLMSO is 

awaiting Army response to questions on transaction data content. Subsequent to the meeting, Ms. Hilert 

also requested support from the Business Transformation Agency (BTA) in determining the SFIS 

requirements. 

 (5) ADC 242, Shipment Status (DS 856S); Priority Designator (PD), 

Transportation Priority (TP), Project Code, Special Requirements Code. BACKGROUND: This 

change establishes a requirement to provide additional data elements in the DLMS 856S, Shipment 

Status, when applicable and available. The following data elements are to be perpetuated from the 

requisition by the SoS/ICP, or from the material release order by DSS: Project Code; Special 

Requirements Code (MILS RDD coded entries, e.g. 999, N for Not Mission Capable, etc.), and PD. In 

addition, the TP is to be determined and included on the status transaction. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert 

indicated that although this change originated with a requirement to support the Material Processing 

Center, which is a DLA depot operation to support the Navy, it will apply across the board not just for 

the Navy and DSS. She emphasized that as Components migrate their systems to DLMS they should 

plan to accommodate this enhancement and others as discussed above. DSS implemented this change in 

May 2007. DAASC will update Visual Logistics Information Processing System (VLIPS) to 

accommodate the new data elements, but not in the immediate future. ACTION: The Marine Corps 

representative indicated that some raw data is currently downloaded from DAASC which may require 

some changes to this procedure when VLIPS is modified. DAASC agreed to provide DLMSO with the 

changes so they could be coordinated with the Components. 

 (6) Draft PDC 98A, Clarification of Transportation Control Number 

(TCN) Usage (Supply/Transportation). BACKGROUND: This draft proposed change 

provides clarification to the entry instructions for the TCN field and proposes a future edit at 

DAAS on the shipment status transaction TCN. TCN usage would be optional for mode X 

(Bearer, walk-thru) and required under MILSTRIP/DLMS Shipment Status including Shipment 

Status Material Returns, for all modes. The MILS-based edit would only notify submitting 

activities when TCNs are improperly constructed or not provided where required, but would not 

impact transaction processing. However, a DLMS-originated shipment status (856S) would be 
8

rejected or, if feasible, suspended if the TCN is not provided. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert 

explained that this change is still under consideration and would not be finalized until further 

discussions with OSD Transportation Policy and USTRANSCOM. 

 (7) PDC 264, Revise DLMS Supplement (DS) 867I and MILSTRAP 

Issue Transactions to Support Navy Requirements for Reason for Reversal Code (Supply). 

BACKGROUND: This proposed change will revise DLMS 867I Issue transaction to add a 

“Reason for Reversal Code” in support of an existing Navy requirement for an issue reversal 

code. This change will add the Reason for Reversal code to DLMS with new codes S, B and R 

for the Navy and will be implemented by DSS and the Navy. Two positions will be provided 

under DLMS and one position authorized for DLSS. DISCUSSION: Ms. Johnson is concerned 

that the use of the issue reversal code R when a customer returns a discrepant item may 

circumvent the intent of the Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) process. SUBSEQUENT TO 

THE MEETING, Ms. Johnson contacted the DLA Supply PRC representative to request 

specific procedures as to how the issue reversal process works with the SDR process. Mr. 

George Gray, DLA J-37, indicated he is working with the Navy and the Defense Distribution 

Center (DDC) to provide the procedures. 

 (8) PDC 246, Revise DLMS Supplement 527R to Authorize Use of 

Transportation Control Number (TCN) with Materiel Receipt Acknowledgment (MRA) and 

Receipt. BACKGROUND. This proposed change revises DS 527R, and corresponding DLMS 

XML constructs, to authorize use of the TCN in the MRA transaction and in the receipt transaction. 

USAF identified requirement for inclusion of TCN in the MRA to support their Commercial Asset 

Visibility (CAV) process. DLMSO expanded the requirement for TCN beyond CAV to address a 

known void for providing/considering TCN partial and split shipment code information in the MRA 

and retail receipt process. DISCUSSION. Ms. Johnson indicated that the need for TCN to identify 

partial and split shipment information in the MRA and retail receipt transactions was identified and 

discussed in a series of SPRC Meetings, but was never resolved. This change supports resolution of 

the problem by providing the TCN in the DLMS 527R MRA and receipt. The variable length DLMS 

transaction allows inclusion of data that was not possible under the 80 record position constraint of the 

MILSTRAP DI Codes DRA/DRB, D6_. One of the reasons behind this change is the increased use of 

partial shipments in the Distribution Standard System (DSS) which may result in considerable DOD 

processing problems if receipt and MRA systems/procedures are not considering the TCN partial code. 

As multiple AS_ transactions are received with the same document number/suffix, but different TCNs 

due to partial shipments, when the first shipment processes, lack of due-in for subsequent shipments 

may result in associated Supply Discrepancy Reports. Currently, RP 7 of DI Codes DRA/DRB 

(MRA) provides for Service use as follows: “For U.S. forces shipments, enter data prescribed by the 

Service or Agency (e.g. code for controlling receipt of partial or split quantities)”, however there is no 

definitive guidance for MRA reporting based on partial/split shipment coding in the TCN. Ms. 

Johnson asked the Services to identify what information is in RP7 of DRA/DRB transactions they 

generate. During this discussion it was noted that the partial code had been added to the 2D barcode 

on the Issue Release/Receipt Document (IRRD) (DD Form 1348-1A) by ADC 44. Discussion of this 

topic took several paths to address related areas/impacts that should be looked at, however the group 

agreed with the PDC requirement for adding the TCN to the DLMS 527R to facilitate addressing 

known deficiencies. ACTION: Services provide documentation of what information is in RP7 of 

their DRA/DRB transactions. DLA provide status of the implementation of the partial code in the 

2D barcode. 

 
9

 [a] Logistics Metrics Analysis Reporting System (LMARS) and 

DAAS Logistics On-Line Tracking System (LOTS). Prior to the meeting DAASC provided 

comments to the PDC which indicated that in addition to potential changes required in the DAASC 

Web Visual Logistics Information Processing System (WebVLIPS) and MRA Reports (such as 

displaying multiple MRAs for partial/split shipments based on the TCN entry), LMARS and LOTS 

rules would have to be adjusted. This represents a significant change for DAASC. DAASC indicated 

a determination would need to be made as to when LMARS would close the pipeline. Additionally 

DAASC indicated LOTS database tables and parsing rules would have to be adjusted. The DLMSO 

Director asked who would address the LMARS impact. The DUSD(L&MR)SCI representative 

agreed it would be a DUSD(L&MR)SCI and/or DAASC initiative to address LMARS impact. ACTION. 

LMARS impact of processing MRAs for partial/split shipments by including the TCN under DLMS 

should be addressed through DUSD(L&MR)SCI/DAASC channels. 

 [b] DAASC Routing/Editing of DLMS Transactions. During 

discussion of DAASC comments, DAASC noted that their routing rules and many value added 

processes in DAAS are based on the MILS format, accordingly DLMS transactions are converted to 

MILS to go through the DAASC Micro Automated Routing System (DMARS). DAASC is looking 

into other ways to route transactions so that converting to MILS will not be necessary. The 

DUSD(L&MR)SCI representative asked if there was a time line for converting to a new process for 

routing, but that information was not available. ACTION. DAASC provide status and timeline for 

implementation of a new routing process that will not require conversion of DLMS transactions to 

MILS. 

 [c] Possible Financial Impact of Partial Shipments. Discussion of 

partial shipments included concern that the increase in partial shipments from DSS may be causing a 

problem in the financial area. Since DSS confirms shipments based on partial codes and DLA EBS 

bills based on these partial confirmations, the possibility of duplicate billing was raised. A Finance 

PRC representative in attendance recommended that this issue be discussed at the next Finance PRC 

meeting. DLMSO has also suggested that this topic be addressed during the DLA/Army monthly 

meetings (paragraph d. above). ACTION. DLMSO will include the possibility of duplicate billing 

related to partial shipments on the next Finance PRC agenda. 

 (9) ADC 239, DLMS Unit of Material Measure (Unit of Issue/Purchase 

Unit). BACKGROUND: This change updates DLMS Unit of Material Measure Conversion Guide 

to add Units of Measure values that are valid under American Standards Committee (ASC) X12 

transactions with their corresponding DOD Unit of Measure values. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert 

explained that the DLMS requires that specified DOD data values established in DOD systems must 

be converted to the corresponding ANSI ASC X12 code values for transmission under the DLMS. 

The Unit of Material Measure (Unit of Issue/Purchase Unit) Conversion Guide is one of three 

conversion guides used to support DLMS transaction processing. The purpose of the conversion is to 

allow DOD systems to continue using DOD codes internally and convert these to X12 codes during 

transmission only in order to assess compliancy edits. Valid X12 codes must be valid at the 

version/release in which the transaction is processed (pending adoption of more flexible business rules 

within the X12 community). When DOD codes are identified as missing or new, the equivalent X12 

code must be identified and added to the conversion table. The equivalent X12 code may be equal to 

or similar to the DOD code value. Where no equivalent X12 code is available at the appropriate 

version a substitute code may be assigned for temporary use. 
10

 (j) Jump Start Update. Mr. John Schwarz, DLMSO, provided a briefing on the 

DLMSO “Jump Start” initiative. This initiative, sponsored by the OSD Business Transformation 

Office (BTA), provides funding incentives to encourage DLMS migration by Service legacy 

systems. The Jump Start Program provides for a phased, coordinated implementation of current 

and future high priority transaction such as those that require Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) and Item Unique Identification (IUID). Funding was provided in 2007 for the following 

systems: 

 Integrated Logistics System-Supply (ILS-S) – Air Force 

 Naval Tactical Command Support System/RSupply (NTCSS/Relational Supply) 

 Marine Corps Information System Transaction Router (MAISTER) – USMC Stores Accounting 

 Mechanization of Warehousing and Shipping Procedures (MOWASP) – USMC 

 Global Air Transportation System, Water Port System (GATES/WPS) – TRANSCOM 

 Financial and Air Clearance Transportation System (FACTS) - Navy 

It is planned that a data call for 2008 funding will be sent to the Services in July 2007. 

 (k) DLMS Training. Mr. Nat Obey and Mr. Dale Yeakel provided an abbreviated 

training session on DLMS with a focus on reading DLMS Supplements. 

 (l) DLMS XML Status Update. Mr. Tommy Lyons, DLMSO, presented a briefing on 

DLMS XML. Mr. Lyons told the group that the DLMS EDI based XML that is currently in use is ASC 

X12 EDI-based XML and is not an ASC X12 approved variant, but is actually Guideline XML (gXML) 

v2.0 based on ASC X12 EDI transactions. DLMSO is maintaining these EDI based XML schemas as 

well as playing a stronger leadership rule within in the ASC X12, UN/CEFACT, and OASIS standards 

bodies. This role will harmonize differences and document a standard approach across DOD logistics, 

identify commonalities between XML variants and standards and work to get standards approved 

through the standards bodies. Mr. Lyons indicated that DLMSO will develop a CCT-based XML based 

on UN/CEFACT technical specifications. Mr. Lyons emphasized that the only XML currently available 

for systems implementing in the short term is the DLMS EDI-based XML. DISCUSSION: A question 

was asked concerning the advantage of using X12 EDI transactions versus X12 EDI-based XML 

transactions and Mr. Lyons indicated that a business case analysis would have to be done in order to 

determine which should be used. Ms. Hilert indicated if the DLMS X12 EDI based XML has been used, 

but that the DLMS notes on the EDI transactions must be understood and applied in order for the XML 

to be implemented correctly. 

 (m) SPRC Meeting 06-2. Available responses to action items from the last SPRC 

meeting are provided below. ACTION: All Components were asked to review remaining open action 

items and provide status to DLMSO. 

 (1) Use of Suffix Code X on Requisitions/TCN (06-2 paragraph (d)). 

ACTION: DLA proposed a clarifying note to USTRANSCOM for update to the DTR. DLMSO

included a clarifying note in the soon to be reissued MILSTRIP manual. 

 (2) Proposal to Delegate to Dispose Authority for NIIN Status Codes 4 and 8 

at Time of Receipt by the Distribution Depot (06-2 paragraph (h) (1)). ACTION: What is the 

automated system response to reports of excess for NIIN status code 4 and 8? There are two parts to the 
11

question. [a] The NIIN cancellation is completed and the item has been removed from FLIS, or [b] 

The NIIN is marked for deletion however, cancellation action is not complete. 

 [a] If the NIIN has been cancelled and is no longer in FLIS the Customer 

Asset Report (FTE) is rejected at DAASC when the validation check is done. In this case the FTE never 

reaches SMS for evaluation. A FTQ transaction is sent back to the customer from DAASC providing 

informative status of the cancelled NIIN. 

 [b] If the NIN is marked for deletion but the cancellation action has not 

been completed the FTE passes through DAASC to SMS for evaluation. SMS sends a Reply to 

Customer Asset Report (FTR) back to the customer with a TC status on the entire quantity offered on 

the FTE. Basically this tells the customer we don't want the material, but doesn't clarify we don't want it 

because the item is scheduled for deletion. In many cases a customer will wait for a period of time and 

then resubmit the FTE in hopes they will receive an acceptance of their excess offer. Unless the 

cancellation process is complete prior to the subsequent FTE submissions the cycle could continue with 

the customer never understanding the item had been cancelled. 

 [c] FOLLOW-ON ACTION: DLMSO will review for possible proposal 

of an additional T series status code for AP2.16 based upon DLA finding above. 

 (3) Proposed DLMS/MILSTRIP Change for Price Notification (06-2, 

paragraph (h) (2)). This Marine Corps proposed change would establish a new Advice Code which 

would enable customers to request the SOS identify the actual cost and permit the customer a choice on 

whether to proceed prior to contract award. The PDC has been held pending Pricing IPT determination. 

ACTION: DLA was asked to provide procedures currently in place for communicating to customers 

significant changes in pricing and provide any planned changes. Refer to 1.(d) (2) above. In addition, 

IPT did find some areas that could reduce the number of price disconnects and customer pricing issues, 

such as: 

 [a] Updating the pricing job aids: to better explain when price updates 

should be made immediately or when they can be aligned with the FLIS price update; the rule for 

effective dating when an out-of-cycle price occurs (e.g., cannot be 10/01); and when the price updates 

cannot be executed by FLIS (e.g., during brown out periods). 

 [b] Some pricing disconnects occurred during conversion to BSM which 

has since been corrected....should be a one time anomaly. 

Within BSM, only AAC L items are priced at acquisition cost plus surcharge for FLIS catalogued items. 

The Pricing IPT reviewed the volume of AAC L items and determined that only about 3,000 per month 

(1/2 being medical items) occur. System changes to improve a problem for a relatively small amount of 

orders is of lower priority for DLA at this time. In order to alert the customer and meet the intent 
12

of the Marine Corps request (stop an order from processing until the Marine Corps understands the price 

that will be charged and obtain MC approval before the order is released), J-8 has zeroed out all AAC L 

prices in FLIS. J8 is working toward providing estimated prices in FLIS if the item has been active 

within the last two years. 

Procedures currently in place for communicating to customers significant changes in pricing include: 

 [a] Price Challenge Program 

 [b] Annual Price Change Program 

 [c] Materiel Obligation Validation Program 

 [d] B7 status that identifies a price change. There are some current issues 

to be resolved: 

 1 MILSTRIP AE8 status for documents in BB, BZ, and BV status 

actually conveys the price to the customer right in the Supply Status transaction. NAMI (a wholesale 

Army activity) has leveraged these prices on the outbound status from BSM to update their systems 

accordingly. The intelligence is there but just needs to be leveraged by the Services. 

 2 Out of cycle price change notification. 

 a A B7 is not being transmitted for out of cycle price 

changes (all those changes that occur other than the year-end or annual price changes). A systems 

change is being coordinated to address this problem. 

 b A B7 is being transmitted for Annual Price changes the 

majority of the time. For those times it did not work, a remedy ticket has been submitted. 

The Pricing IPT will continue to investigate and recommend corrective action. 

 

___/signed/____ Approved:____/signed/_____ 

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP 

Supply PRC Chair Director 

 Defense Logistics Management 

 Standards Office 

Enclosure