1 / 5

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement Reports Anomaly Transactions Ellen Hilert Mary Jane Johnson

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement Reports Anomaly Transactions Ellen Hilert Mary Jane Johnson Paul Jensen DLA Logistics Management Standards Office Supply Process Review Committee Meeting 13-3 September 19, 2013 www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso.

len
Download Presentation

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement Reports Anomaly Transactions Ellen Hilert Mary Jane Johnson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement Reports Anomaly Transactions Ellen Hilert Mary Jane Johnson Paul Jensen DLA Logistics Management Standards Office Supply Process Review Committee Meeting 13-3 September 19, 2013 www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso

  2. Several anomaly events were identified that are preventing MRA from being successfully recorded. • Under MILSTRIP procedures ICPs may suffix a requisition under multiple scenarios. If the receiving activity does not update their records based on the supply and shipment status or shipment documentation upon receipt to reflect the suffix, the MRA transaction will not match and the MRA report will reflect MRA Not Received. (In the examples below, the records are not all in chronological order and the DRA (MRA transaction) was the last transaction)sent. Anomaly Background

  3. If MRA transactions are sent to an activity other than a recognized wholesale ICP RIC, the MRA will not be recorded. • In the examples below, the MRA transaction was sent to LA9 (Advanced Military Packaging - MILSTRIP Orders, Oshkosh, WI Anomaly Background

  4. DLA Transaction Services identified a sample of Navy DRA transaction that appeared to have RP 60-62 (date posted to record) and RP 77-80 (consignee receipt date yddd) inaccurate. Even though the year is on consignee receipt date, DLA Transaction Services assigns the year that makes the most logistical sense. Some appeared to have copied those record positions from a previous transaction. It affects LMARS and can affect MRA if the data in customer receipt date was out of the timeframe allotted. • DLMS concern with DLA Transaction Services using a currently undefined field to determine year. • A PDC is required to define and document the data requirement for RP 77-80. Anomaly Background

  5. DLA Transaction Services is not receiving shipment status transactions from GSA. • Possible Army gap in the transmission of shipment status for Army directed shipments is resulting in (some) MRA transactions with no corresponding shipment status. • GCSS-Army sends a DRA for post-post issues from Army Working Capital Fund, Supply Support Activity stock with no shipment status. Recommended Army Way Ahead: Suppress MRA (DRAs) for internal GCSS-Army issues . • DLA Logistics Management Standards Response: MRA is required for issues from wholesale stock even when internal to the Service. Anomaly Background

More Related