Friday, April 10, 2009

PM PBUSE Newsletters

We have published two PM PBUSE newsletters.

View 27 Mar 09 edition (must have AKO account to access)

View 10 Apr 09 edition (must have AKO account to access)

Thursday, April 2, 2009

When To Use PBUSE to Field and When Not To Use PBUSE

Hear the PODCAST

Today, I want to discuss the flowchart and note page that we devised and will publish in our next PBUSE guide. The flowchart was designed to aid the PM in determining if an item needs to be fielded using PBUSE.

The PM is really held to the property accountability requirements that the gaining PBO is held to. If the PBO is required to account for an item, then it naturally follows that the PM must field that item using PBUSE. The policy the PBO must follow is found in AR 710-2, paragraph 2-5. What we don’t want is for the PBO to make the decision of whether an item must be fielded using PBUSE. We want the PM to have approved guidelines. Should the PBO decide to account for items fielded by the PM that do not qualify for PBUSE fielding, then the PBO will add these items to their property book after the fielding. The PM will not be the one that adds the item to PBUSE for the PBO if the item does not qualify for PBUSE fielding per this flowchart. We plan on getting approval from the Army G4 on these decision points with the result possibly being a change in established policy or procedures.

To read the chart, begin at the START connector following the arrows to each decision point, answer the questions with a “Yes” or “No”, and following the arrows until you get to an END connector. In this particular flow chart, if all the answers are no to the decision points on the left, then the item does not have to fielded using PBUSE. If any of the decisions are Yes, then follow the “1” connector to two more decision points which could lead to the item fielded using PBUSE or not fielded using PBUSE.

The first decision point asks the question “Is the item listed in SB 700-20?”. The SB 700-20 is a supply bulletin cataloging supplies and equipment of Army adopted reportable items. If an item is in SB 700-20 it means that the item has a Line Item Number (LIN) assigned and that the item is nonexpendable. LINs are only assigned to nonexpendable items. Following the chart then, if the item is in SB 700-20, the answer is yes and the arrow takes you to the “GOTO 1” connector and unto the links under the “1” connector on the right. We will follow the “1” sequence after we go through the rest of the flowchart on the left.

The next decision point asks “Is the item similar or a substitute for one listed in SB 700-20?” As we just stated, if an item is in SB 700-20, it is nonexpendable. If the item you have to field is similar to any items in the SB 700-20 or is a substitute for an item in SB 700-20, then the item is nonexpendable. That is because an item that is similar or a substitute for an item in the SB 700-20 is required to be accounted for by the PBO per AR 710-2, paragraph 2-5 subparagraphs a15 and a20.

The next decision point asks the question “Is the item authorized by an Army G3 document (MTOE, TDA, ONS)?” Again, we have to go back to the AR 710-2 paragraph 2-5 requirements that the PBO is held to, this time to subparagraph a1. Subparagraph a1 only identifies MTOE, TDA, or JTA authorization; ONS is not addressed. An item being authorized by an ONS does not automatically make it nonexpendable. We will filter out what ONS items are required to be on PBUSE and which ones are not in the flowchart on the right.

If the item NSN has been assigned an Accounting Requirements Code of “N” in the FEDLOG, then the item needs to be fielded using PBUSE, even if it is a component of the end item. The definitions of the three values of the ARC are found on the notes page of the flowchart (second page).

Is the item a non-consumable Class II or Class VII item? The note page, note 1, lists the ten classes of supply. Only nonexpendable Class II and Class VII items are accounted for on a unit property book. There are Class IV and Class VIII that also are placed unto a property book but they are a very small percentage. Most unit property books have no Class IV and very little Class VIII. The Class VIII they do have are MTOE items.

Is the item controlled? Note 2 defines what a controlled item is. Items that meet these criteria are nonexpendable, no matter the cost. There are exceptions to this and one of those are items that are not coded as ARC “N”. We filter out those exceptions on the decision column on the right. So don’t worry about those exceptions right now.

We are down to the final decision point, at least on the left hand side. Does the item cost $5,000 or more? This $5,000 limit is based upon guidance issued in DODI 5000.64, paragraph 6.2. This is the last and final determination. If for any reason any of the decision points above it are answered with a yes, you will never get to this point. But, if you do get to this point and can answer no, you are not required to field the equipment using PBUSE.

If however, you answered any of the questions on the left as yes, you are now required to go through the two decision points on the right.

The first asks if the item is going to be accounted for by the gaining command using PBUSE. The answer is no if SARSS, SAMS-E, CCSS, DPAS, or any other system is going to be used by the gaining command to account for this item. That is because no other system used by the gaining command but PBUSE will allow you to do a lateral transfer. And if you can’t do a PBUSE lateral transfer, there is no reason for you to use PBUSE to issue the item. Remember, we are using PBUSE to leverage our capability of ensuring that the gaining command accounts for fielded items. We do this through the management of the lateral transfers. If there is no lateral transfer to monitor, there is no reason to use PBUSE to field the item. If another system is to be used by the gaining command, the procedures in DA Pam 700-142 will be followed. There may be cases where you are issuing some items to a unit using PBUSE as well as others not using PBUSE. A good example of this would be a combat vehicle. The vehicles and all auxiliary equipment are issued to a unit are done so using PBUSE. But the vehicles that are being issued as floats, will not be. That is because floats are managed as ASL and therefore are accounted for using SARSS. There is not a PBUSE to SARSS transfer, so the floats are not fielded using PBUSE. If an item is Class IX, then the item is maintained in the maintenance systems. Central Issue Facility equipment is accounted for using CIF ISM. Again, there is no lateral transfer to the maintenance or CIF systems, and therefore, you cannot field them using PBUSE.

The last decision asks if the property is going to remain PM equipment. There are times when the PM is “temporarily” fielding an item and once the gaining command is through with it, then it goes back to the PM. Since the item is not permanently being issued, this PM asset is never added to PBUSE and laterally transferred. We are not using PBUSE to account for PM equipment; that is done through other means. Only equipment being permanently fielded need to be added to PBUSE. If the gaining unit wishes to add these PM assets to their property book for some reason, they are the ones that add them. They are not to be transferred by the PM using PBUSE.

I have gone over all of these decision points, over and over again. I don’t believe that I have missed any. However, if a situation comes up where you have an item that you believe should be fielded using PBUSE and it is not identified as such in any of the nine decision points, please email me at

Thanks for your time.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

User Created Component Hand Receipts

Today’s discussion is about Component Hand Receipts in PBUSE. I will record the PODCAST as soon as I get my voice back. For now, you will have to read my contribution.

In the last Software change package, they added a feature that many of you may not be aware of.

The primary hand receipt holder can use the Catalog, Component module to view component listings.
There is a LOGSA tab which will provide components of an item that has a Supply Catalog – meaning sets, kits, and outfits. It will not provide component listings for an item that has only a TM or does not even have a standard LIN.

However, with the newest change, if you were to go to the Copy Component Data tab, you can view user created component listings. Not just the ones you have made but Component listings entered into PBUSE by any other PHR. This prevents you from having to start from scratch. However, caution must be used. Some of these user created listings may not be exactly what is printed in the TM as the owner may have changed it.

So, for an example, I want to show you the user created component listings for an M1A1 (T13168). First, choose the Column Name option LIN (that is the default option). Then type in the M1A1 LIN - T13168. Then press the execute button.

13 pages of listings are returned.

You can then view some of them and select the one closest to what you want. Then simply press the apply button.

Let’s say you are RIP/TOA’ing with a unit and you want to use the entire user created catalog listings that the unit you are replacing had. You can do this individually or you can do it for the entire UIC.

To do the entire, click on the Copy Entire UIC button on the top left.

You’ll be given a chance to enter in the UIC you want to pull from and the UIC you wish to place the component listing.

By copying the entire UIC, I copied (within about 30 seconds), all of the user created catalog listings from one UIC to my UIC.

Isn’t this a great improvement?

Well, when I saw what you can do with this capability, I thought about how we can use this in the PM community. This is how I see it.
Can you really trust anyone else to have the right component listing in their PBUSE. I would be very hesitant to blindly use another’s listing without going through it line by line to see if it is correct. If there was just some way that you could be certain that the listing was right, that is the one you would choose instead of looking at what everyone else has.

So, if the PM could mark the user created component listing with”MASTER COPY” or something like that, you could easily pick it out. In fact, if “MASTER COPY” was always used in the Publication Desc field, you could search for MASTER COPY for any item that you want the listing for.

To take a look at what I am proposing, go the Copy Component data tab, check User Created, and then search for LIN FA506Q. Right at the top you should find a component listing for a RAID Tower Sensor System under UIC W27PFF marked as Master Copy.

Then do query for the entire UIC W27PFF. You will see two different Maser Copy component listings.

What do you think?

Monday, January 12, 2009

Policies and Procedures for the Handling of Personal Effects

Listen to Podcast (use Quicktime player).

While I was assigned to the Army G4, I was very frustrated with the numerous congressionals and complaints we received in regard to a Soldier's personal effects. Most of the complaints were in reference to Soldiers that were medically evacuated. I was disgusted by the care of these personal effects. When I started researching what the policies and procedures actually were, I found that there were no standard procedures for our wounded. There must have been about seven or eight regulations and pamphlets that referred to the handling of personal effects (PE) but most only referenced how to handle PE for our fallen.

So, I set about drafting an Army message that would establish the procedures for the handling of PE. This required extensive staff work with the Army G1, Mortuary Affairs, the Joint Personal Effects Depot, and others. The result was an All Army Activity (ALARACT) message 139/2006 210236Z Jul 06 - "Policies and Procedures for the handling of personal effects and government property".

Today, I received the latest ALARACT message in regard to the handling of PE - ALARACT 06/2009 090012Z Jan 09 "Policies and Procedures for the Handling of PE for Medically Evacuated Soldiers from a Combatant Theater". The major change from this message and the one I helped author earlier is that the Summary Court Martial Officers (SCMOs) appointed to handle PE of medically evacuated Soldiers do not have to be officers - NCOs in the rank of E-6 or above can act as SCMOs. An officer must still be assigned as SCMO for any Soldiers killed in action.

There is a link on this message to a Quartermaster site that has all things concerning Mortuary Affairs. I found a couple of things quite interesting about this site.

1. I found a short video that shows how to handle PE for a Soldier killed in action. The same procedures are relevant for Soldiers medically evacuated.

2. The site contains numerous references including the appropriate regulations and the latest SCMO Checklist..

3. It contains a staff guide that units may find helpful.

4. An "Army Casualty Notification and Assistance Guide" (use your AKO username and password when queried).

What I couldn't find on the site that I think are essential (maybe I just missed them) are links to all of the ALARACT messages and SCMO checklists. So I put those documents on one of the AKO sites I operate at work.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Program Executive Office (PEO)/ Program Manager (PM) Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced (PBUSE) Use


The office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) has published an All Army Activity (ALARACT) message on 23 December 2008 concerning the use of PBUSE to field equipment by ASA(ALT) PEO and PMs. You can view this message on ASA(ALT)’s AKO site at

The message:

Mandates the use of PBUSE during equipment fieldings by all PEO/PMs by 1 Apr 09.
a. All previous messages concerning this initiative concentrated on the use of PBUSE in the CENTCOM AOR. This message takes a step further and mandates the use by all PMs no matter where they field equipment.
b. I want to point out that only ASA(ALT) PEO and PMs are mandated to use PBUSE by this message. That means that this message does not direct other fielding agencies such as PM Rapid Equipment Fielding (REF) to use PBUSE. ASA(ALT) does not have that authority.
c. It only applies to equipment that is actually being fielded. If a PM is providing a service, such as optical cable installation on a Forward Operating Base (FOB), PBUSE does not have to be used to provide the equipment for the service.
d. It also will not apply for any PM owned equipment that will remain PM equipment. Usually the PM uses a DA Form 2062 to hand receipt this type of equipment to the using unit. If the items are controlled (weapons, Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI), etc), the gaining unit should pick up the items on their PBUSE account (PBIC 6) for Army visibility purposes. This ensures that the unit knows they are responsible for the equipment and proper inventories are performed. There is no requirement for the PM to use PBUSE to “hand receipt” equipment that is going to come back to the PM.

Secondly, the message directs the transfer of any equipment from other than the PEO/PMs PBUSE account (such as from TPE PBO PBUSE accounts) to the PM's own PBUSE account by 15 Feb 09. It took awhile for ASA(ALT) to get the PBUSE accounts set-up for PM use. Since this initiative was looked upon as a great idea by the Army, PMs did not wait for their own PBUSE accounts and in Theater started using TPE UICs to field equipment to the gaining units. That means the TPE PBO folks were posting the lateral transfer documents from the TPE account to the gaining unit, perhaps to another TPE account used by the gaining unit vice having the PM perform these duties. All of this equipment on other accounts will need to be transferred over to the PMs PBUSE account by 15 February 2009. We have set this deadline because during a recent Inspector General (IG) inspection, they found these accounts and strongly recommended that the PM manage their own assets.

The message provides guidelines for system manager assignment and PBUSE training.
a. Since the PM PBUSE accounts are not for accountability purposes, we renamed the manager of the account, normally known as a Property Book Officer (PBO), to System Manager. The system manager:
1) is assigned by the PM using Appointment Orders.
2) must be a military or government civilian.
3) has the ultimate responsibility for property management of the PM PBUSE account.
4) may initiate add/delete/modify actions for his/her PBUSE accounts.
5) acts as the Information Security System Officer (ISSO) unless another individual is assigned that duty.

To ensure the PEO/PMs are using PBUSE to field equipment, ASA(ALT) will have an outside agency verify compliance beginning sometime after 30 June 2009. ASA(ALT) is currently coordinating with the Army Audit Agency (AAA) to determine if they are available to do an audit.

I want everyone to understand the reason that ASA(ALT) will be using PBUSE to field equipment – to ensure that the gaining command assumes accountability of the equipment they are issued. The gaining command is ultimately responsible for the accountability. If the unit PBO refuses to accept the PM PBUSE lateral transfer, the property remains on the PMs account and the gaining command is not properly accounting for the equipment they have been issued. We are right back where we were before this initiative.

Therefore, it is the gaining command’s responsibility to ensure that the PBO accepts the lateral transfer. Right now there is not an easy way to determine if there are documents out there that have not been accepted. The Logistics Support Agency (LOGSA) is working that issue and is designing a PM module inside the Logistics Information Warehouse (LIW) to help the PM and gaining command determine what equipment has been issued and not accepted.

The message states again that the fielding is not completed until the gaining command accepts the PBUSE transfer. This is important. But just because the PM fields the equipment does not mean that they are responsible in making the PBO accept the transfer. ASA(ALT) is not going to allow anyone to continue to point fingers at our PMs for the lack of accountability by the gaining units. ASA(ALT) intends to aggressively manage these PBUSE accounts. Any PBO that refuses to accept a transfer better have a good reason why because they will most likely be answering to a General Officer inquiry 15 days after the issue. Gaining commands, if you don’t want these GO inquires, you need to have a plan on how you are going to ensure the PBO accepts PBUSE transfers for any equipment in the unit.

I have talked to a couple of PBOs already who want to tell me that they won’t accept the equipment transfer because their unit says they didn’t get the equipment (despite the fact that the PM has provided a signed document and signature card from the unit commander). Or, they wanted it on another PBIC code, the unit is not authorized the item, or didn’t want the equipment. If the unit has signed for the equipment, it needs to go on an Army accountable record. Gaining units – that is your responsibility to make sure that happens.

I want to make it clear that it will not be the PMs fault that equipment is not properly accounted for when appropriate signed paperwork has been provided to the PBO. PBOs, you have been warned.

This PBUSE initiative has the interest of the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. Do I need to say more?

If you want to read the internal guidance provided to the PEO and PMs concerning the use of PBUSE, ASA(ALT)’s PBUSE guide can be found on their AKO site (

Sunday, May 11, 2008

WLTW Logistical Message Army G4 Workshop

Slide #1. Introduction Slide. This podcast is meant for all of you who were not able to make it to the World-wide Logistics Training Workshop (WLTW) at Redstone Arsenal 21-25 April 2008, I wish to share the Army G4 logistical message workshop with you. This was an hour long workshop. I do not plan to have this podcast last for one hour so I will “zoom” through some of these messages. Please print out or have available for viewing the slides attached to this podcast and flip through the slides as I talk about each of them.

Slide #2. Messages and Projects. Today I plan on discussing how to retrieve logistical messages. I will give a short overview of 37 published messages starting with the messages that were last published and moving back in time to the oldest message. At the end of the presentation, I will also discuss some of the Army G4 working projects.

Slide #3. Retrieving Messages. To retrieve logistical messages, you should go to LOGNet in the News Items topic, Messages to the field. The website is on the slide. Subscribe to the Messages to the Field topic and you will be sent an email every time a logistical message is added giving you the chance to go to the supplied link and view each message. Messages that affect PBUSE usually can be found on the PBUSE sign-in screen.

Slide #4. Short Description. For each of the 37 messages, I will give you the publish date, which is important when you wish to find them on LOGNet. I will also provide some key points of each message as well as the POC. I do wish to point out that I am the POC for only one of the 37 messages. If you want more information, you should contact the POCs provided on the message.

Slide #5. Procurement of Cargo Containers. A message that the Army G4 just published on 4 April discusses the procurement procedures for general cargo and other than general cargo containers. This message tells the PBO that they are supposed to process the requisitions. Although these containers are currently coded as expendable items, that will change in the very near future. These containers will be coded to nonexpendable IAW the changes made to DA Pam 708-2 in November 2007. I have already had phone calls from staff officers stating that PBO’s are refusing to process these requisitions. In order to gain accountability of the containers as they are changed from expendable to nonexpendable, we need the support of every PBO to grab the accountability at the time of requisition even though they must order these as expendable items until the ARC is changed.

Slide #6. Policy for Combat Uniforms Issued as OCIE to Deployers. This message discusses the recent change to ACU accountability made possible through a signed presidential bill. This change has been made to the recent edition of AR 710-2. Combat uniforms issued to Soldiers as OCIE, are now non-recoverable items and CTA 50-900 Appendix F has been updated to reflect this change. The uniforms will remain on Soldier OCIE records but will not have to be turned in to the CIF and will transfer with the Soldier from place to place. This message also contains a request that before any ACU is disposed of, that the small IR square on each shoulder patch is removed prior to disposal. These IR patches were added to ACUs to prevent friendly-fire incidents. By disposing of them improperly, the IR squares could be used by the enemy and prevent a Soldier from firing on them assuming they are a friendly force. We need your help in getting this message about the IR patches down to every Soldier.

Slide #7. Treatment of Uniforms with Permethrin. We now have three types of ACU’s – two of which are fire-retardant. The Army has found that when treating the fire-retardant uniforms with the insect repellent, the repellant is not evenly distributed. The Army is already researching the ability to add the insect repellent to the fire-retardant uniforms before issue.

Slide #8. Establishment of MOS OCIE Retained Issue. The Army has established OCIE retained issue. Last October, we instituted a regional retained issue which was very successful. This message announces the fact that the retained issue will now be done Army-wide for all active duty Soldiers. The list of retained issue – those OCIE items that will not be turned in after issue as the Soldier PCS’s from one place to the next – can be found in the newest edition of CTA 50-900, found on FMSWeb. The OCIE will be shipped at government expense.

Slide #9. Automatics Reset Induction List (ARI) Change. A change to the handling of ARI, now requires that all units using the ARMT version 6.5 to turn-in equipment in Theater must turn-in 100% of their ARI. The previous percentage was 25%.

Slide #10. Unserviceable EPLRS Radio T/I Procedures. The EPLRS radio is no longer under warranty. Any unserviceable EPLRS must be sent to Raytheon as a supply transaction. The message gives step by step instructions on how to turn in the radios to the SSA and how and where the SSA is to ship them. Remember that EPLRS are CCI and that they have special handling procedures.

Slide #11. SARSS 1 OMA NIIN Table (DS-RX) Elimination. Please don’t ask me any questions about this message as it concerns a SARSS change. The message requires that by 5 September 2008, the OMA NIIN table be deleted. The message gives step by step directions. If you wish more information, please contact the POC on the message.

Slide #12. Ballistic Fragmentation Eye Protection. 10% of battlefield casualties are a result of eye injuries. The ballistic glasses that we are issuing prevent these eye injuries. Therefore we want Soldiers to wear them. This message gives you descriptions of each type of ballistic glasses as well as some commercial models that can be purchased. Step by step directions are provided.

Slide #13. Establishment of Combat Action Streamer. The reason I am providing you with a G1 message on the establishment of the Combat Action Streamer is because as logisticians, you know that we will have to order these streamers. The procedures to order them are IAW AR 840-10 and are found in the message for those of you who have never ordered streamers before.

Slide #14. Unauthorized Transportation of Soldier’s Personal Items. We have a problem with personal effects being shipped back to home station as unit cargo. There was a message published in 2005 which gives instructions on how to transport personal effects for Soldiers killed in action, missing in action, and wounded medically evacuated. These procedures do not have any personal effects being held by the command and transported back as unit cargo, yet many units are doing so. There is also a problem with Soldiers purchasing items in Theater that will not fit in their authorized baggage and placing them into the unit cargo containers to be shipped back to home station. No personal effects are to be shipped back to home station via unit cargo, no matter the reason.

Slide #15. First Source for SKOT. PM SKOT is to be contacted and given a chance to supply hand tools before any tools are locally purchased. Any hand tools of sets, kits, or outfits locally purchased must be approved by an O-6 commander prior to purchase. This new change will be reflected in the next publication of DA Pam 700-60 which should be published in the next couple of months.

Slide #16. Physical Security Policy for Transporting Army Weapons and Ammo. This message is not a change of any policy but gives, in one document, the entire set of polices and procedures on how to ship weapons and ammo in commercial aircraft. We have had problems with Soldiers being denied the ability to ship their weapon with commercial airliners and leaving their weapons at the airlines. We want to prevent this as well as ensure that weapons and ammunition are handled properly.

Slide #17. Security and Accountability of Sensitive Items. The VCSA was concerned with the amount of controlled items that are being found in the hands of the enemy. This message was published to remind all Army leaders that the security of our controlled and other high value items is critical. We don’t want our Soldiers killed by the enemy using our own equipment.

Slide #18. Military Uniforms and Accessories Wear Out Dates. This message is a G1 message but just like the one concerning the combat streamers, logisticians are the ones providing the information to Soldiers concerning the wear out dates of uniforms. This message gives you those dates for items such as BDU’s, DCU’s, black combat boots, and Jungle boots. So, I ask that you use this message to get the word out concerning these wear out dates.

Slide #19. FY08 PVS-7 Image Intensifier Tubes (I2T). The Army is currently short of serviceable PVS-7 image intensifier tubes. This message lists the mitigation strategies that we are using. This message gives step by step instructions on what to do with unserviceable intensifier tubes.

Slide #20. Use of Army Expert ASL Team. The use of the ASL expert team has been a real success in Theater in the management of ASL. Therefore, the use of the strategies deployed by the ASL expert team will continue to be used in Theater as well as in Europe and Korea that have direct support customers.

Slide #21. Updated FBCB2 and BFT Unit and Theater Management. This message discusses the installation and deinstallation of FBCB2 and BFT installation kits. If your unit is deploying, it is essential that you understand these policies.

Slide #22. Revised USR Reporting Requirements. The Army has deployed a new USR program which uses the on hand balance of equipment accountable in PBUSE through a LIW feed. The commander still has the ability to change that quantity when there is the possibility that more or less equipment is actually available because of loans, transfers and other transactions. At the monthly strategic readiness reviews chaired by the VCSA, each deployed and deploying BCTs are shown. The Vice has made numerous notes of BCT commanders changing the Equipment on Hand quantities to show more than want is on-hand in PBUSE. I have received numerous requests to justify the quantities supplied by LIW to this new USR program. In most cases, the query was initiated because the commander was reporting more than what is shown on accountable records. In almost all cases, the queries resulted in the finding that the units had more equipment than what was shown on their accountable records. Not a good finding to give to the VCSA who, like all the Army staff, is quite concerned of our property accountability. This message doesn’t discuss all that but it does give the procedures on how to use the stand-alone program. I told you about the problems because accountability issues should be a concern of all leaders, logisticians, and especially property book officers.

Slide #23. Operation Total Recall FRAGO #2. This is the only message of the 37 messages where I am the POC. The main points of this FRAGO were: 1) An OCIE inventory. This inventory’s intent was to reconcile OCIE that had been issued to units and Soldiers accounted for on PBUSE with those assets issued to Soldiers using our new OCIE enterprise-system CIF ISM. But, the results were far from ideal. There were many OCIE items that were added back to accountable records- that is a good news story - but hardly any of these items were those issued by RFI. 2) Because of the introduction of the national nonstandard catalog managed in SLAMIS, we need to realign our user-created catalogs in PBUSE. This will allow for us to have national visibility of the nonstandard items on property book records. The deadline for property book officers to accomplish this task Is 1 October 2008 except for IMCOM units that are currently or just recently migrated to PBUSE. They will have until 1 April 2009. There are tools within SLAMIS that will assist you in this task. Right now we have over 2 million items that need to be realigned. 3) FRAGO #2 is our first attempt at resolving serial number discrepancies. Currently we are concentrating on UIT items. When we first deployed PBUSE, it would allow for duplicate serial numbers. We no longer allow that. So, we need to get the duplicate serial numbers resolved. We are also trying to resolve UIT serial numbers that contain all zeros or that contain N/A. I was amazed to find that PBOs would use all zeros or N/A as serial numbers for controlled items. 4) The FRAGO also announced more changes to the processing of a financial liability investigation of property loss. It is now required, not a choice, that the inquiry/investigation number be assigned prior to the accountable officer posting a document number. An additional change is that the approving authority’s UIC is to be placed in block two. This is so that we will be able to track the financial liability investigations better and ensure that the investigation is completed. The FRAGO also reiterated who can perform the functions of an approving authority. The approving authority must be an O-6 commander or above and cannot be delegated below the O-6 level. If the final result of the investigation is a loss of equipment $100,000 or greater or a loss of a controlled item, then the approving authority is “bumped” up to a general officer or a SES. I want to reiterate that the approving authority is only “bumped” up when the final loss meets the requirements – not the items listed at the initiation of the financial liability of investigation. This policy is not just for Theater; it is intended for every Army unit or agency. The appointing authority requirement s remains unchanged. You can look at the financial liability investigation information posted in PBUSE on LIW, in reportable assets. In the Army Serial Number Tracker (ARSNT) module you can view the UIT serial number discrepancies.

Slide #24. Turn In of Interceptor Body Armor. We have a new body armor – IOTV . Some units are being issued the new body armor prior to deployment and others are getting them in Theater. Issuing them means that we have Soldiers with two sets of body armor. This message gives disposition instructions for those extra sets. It also discusses components of the body armor as well as care instructions. It directs that mixed ACU/DCU/BDU pattern body armor is authorized.

Slide #25. Materiel Status Data Flow Reporting Policy. This message addresses how SAMS-E data will be processed and reporting frequencies and consolidation procedures.

Slide #26. FY08 RESET FRAGO. This message details equipment-related RESET procedures and defines how the Army will execute RESET operations in FY08. This message has 13 attachments. In LOGNet, you will be directed to an AKO site to view the attachments since LOGNet will only allow one attachment to the conversations.

Slide #27. Establishment of OCIE Central Management Office. This only applies to the Active Component. OCIE now has a central manager. No longer will Ft. Campbell be short items while Ft. Bragg has excess – the central manager will move OICE stocks around to ensure that no one is short. The central manager will order all OCIE and give disposition instructions for excess. This message details what items will be managed and also discusses the OCIE property accountability system, CIF ISM. CIF ISM allows for a Soldier to be issued OCIE at Ft. Hood , turn it in anywhere in the world, and his/her CIF records are updated to show the turn-in. This ability will certainly give us an advantage in the future when units deploy or Soldiers are processed through a CRC. It has also given us the ability turn-in the OCIE for KIA’s and wounded medically evacuated. The OCIE is sent through the Joint Personal Effects Depot (JPED) to Aberdeen Proving Grounds where it is cleaned and processed. The JPED then turns in the OCIE at the Aberdeen Proving Ground CIF and their records are cleared for the items that were turned in.

Slide #28. Retrograde Operations. We have published three messages which give specific guidance by class of supply on equipment and materiel retrograde in three Theaters – CENTCOM, EUSA, and USAREUR.

Slide #29. PEO/PM Equipment Fielding in CENTCOM AOR. Having the PM’s use PBUSE to issue equipment has been in the works for a couple of years. Making the PM’s use PBUSE forces them to issue equipment with valid LINs/NSLINs and NSNs/MCNs. If the item is not in the catalog, the PM’s must request a SLAMIS NSLIN/MCN in order to put the equipment into their PBUSE account to issue. The proof-of-principle equipment is the MRAP’s. Not only can we say that we have 100% accountability of the vehicles that have been fielded, we can also say that we 100% accountability of all the auxiliary equipment as well, such as BFT, SINCGARS, etc. This message provides execution guidance. All PM’s issuing equipment in the CENTCOM Theater must be using PBUSE to do so by the end of this fiscal year; all others by the end of FY09.

Slide #30. Interim In-Transit Visibility (ITV). Gives specific directions on the use of RFID tags – what must be tagged, what level of detail required, and procedures to view ITV data.

Slide #31. Security of Army Computers. Although this message was published by the Army Provost Marshall, there is an accountability requirement hidden in this message which specifies that all Army computers must be issued to the user using hand receipt procedures. This does not mean that computers must be on the property book. What this means is that there must accountability at the company-level. Which means units must use PBUSE to hand receipt to the user or use a DA Form 2062.

Slide #32. Change 1 to LBE Policy. This message provides clarification to the original LBE message (6 Sep 07) which we will discuss in just a bit. Supplemental guidance to the original message is given in the areas of lateral transfers, maintenance standards and temporary loans.

Slide #33. CENTCOM SCMO Checklist. This is a G1 message, but as we have already found, there is a logistical piece of this message as well. This is the official checklist for Summary Court Martial Officers assigned to handle personal effects of Soldiers KIA, MIA, or wounded medically-evacuated. Since our supply sergeants and other supply personnel usually are involved with the handling of personal effects, this message needs to get to every commander in Theater. This is one of those messages that needs to be in the Pre-Deployment file because if you wait until the situation exists, you won’t know the proper procedures for handling that Soldier’s personal effects.

Slide #34. Heirloom PE Chests. Speaking of personal effects, this message provides instructions on how to acquire these chests for the family members of the deceased Soldier and who can stock them for use.

Slide #35. Maintenance Stock Policy SAMS-E. Since SAMS-E can handle the accountability of maintenance stocks, this message gives directions on what stock can be maintained.

Slide #36. Revised ARPL. At the conference, I found that usually only one or two individuals in each brief knew what the ARPL is. But, when I asked how many of them knew what the DAMPL was, almost everyone raised their hands. The ARPL replaced the DAMPL. The ARPL has different priorities for units depending on where they are in the ARFORGEN model and is used to distribute equipment in accordance with G-3 priorities. If you are having difficulties ordering equipment, your UIC may not be on the ARPL. You should call the item manager to ensure that the ARPL contains your UICs.

Slide #37. LBE Policy and Procedures. This is the LBE that has a change 1 that we discussed just a few slides back. Any information about LBE is contained in this message including correct UIC structure, PBIC and TAC.

Slide #38. TPE Modification. This is an extremely long message in two parts. If you print them both out, it will be a stack of paper about ½ inch high. This message contains the list of equipment that has been declared TPE by the Army G3 - that is the equipment has been designated not to leave Theater and is accounted for by AMCs TPE Property Book Office.

Slide #39. FRAGO #2 ARMT. This FRAGO provides procedures for the use of the Automated RESET Management Tool. This is the tool that is being used by redeploying units to manage ARI as well as other equipment being inducted into RESET. LOGSA provides training in the use of this module.

Slide #40. Off-line Cancellations. This message is a supplement to a message about two years ago that prohibits the use of eMall and other off-line requisitioning methods except with the use of the GPC. The reason these off-line methods are a problem is financial, as the Army does not receive a bill until the equipment has already been purchased. The obligation is never captured nor is the requisition so the equipment cannot be canceled if funds are not available. This message now prohibits the use of emails, fax, internet, or other off-line methods to cancel requisitions for the exact same reason. SARSS or the GPC should be the only method used to requisition supplies and equipment.

Slide #41. Now I am going to go quickly over some projects in the works.

Slide #42. Did you all know that you could use AKO to view your OCIE records (active component only)? In AKO, go to My Clothing, and your CIF records will be displayed. We are working on opening this ability to commanders. I challenge you to look at yours and see how accurate they are.
AR 735-5 is currently in the final stages of revision. We expect to start informal staffing by the end-of-May which means the final should be out by October or so. We could be held up with the update of the two forms which go along with this regulation – DA Form 1659 and 7531. These forms had to be updated to reflect the new requirements such as assigning the investigation number prior to the document number. The update will reflect the new civilian personnel system NSPS vice GS or WG. It will also contain new DD Form 200 completion instructions to take into consideration multiple items and the use of other continuation sheets. The adjustment limit of durable hand tools will be updated from $100 to $500 per incident – that is if it is published as currently written. This ability will be supplemented with durable and expendable components of SKO’s. Because there is just as much of a chance of a OE-254 component being lost in a quick unit movement from place to place as there is for a mechanic to lose some of his or her hand tools during field maintenance. We are also adding procedures for accounting for losses of other durable items without having to do a financial liability investigation.
The last thing I would like to discuss with you is a new procedure which will not be in the next AR 735-5 but will probably be added in a rapid update once the policies and procedures have been determined. Here’s the situation – you, the PBO know that Charlie Company has 3 more M1’s that what are on the property book. Currently there is nothing you can do about it unless you get a copy of a receipt or an FOI signed by the commander. The Report of Automated Accountability Discrepancy process will allow you as the PBO to add these items to the property book without the intervention of the unit commander. The commander will get the RAAD after the equipment has been added to allow him or her to rebut the addition. This process will also be used to change serial numbers or one PBO to request another PBO to update their records when you are unable to add equipment to PBUSE because of duplicate records. This process is in the early developmental stages. We want the whole process to be automated rather than manual.

Well, that s all I briefed at the WLTW. I hope this information has been helpful.

Friday, February 29, 2008

PODCast #3, Hand Receipt Maintenance

Hand Receipt Maintenance

As a PBO, it is important that you maintain accurate hand receipts. Having items on hand receipts whose nomenclature are “NOT ON CATALOG” or having MTOE items listed as CTA items are not helpful to you or the commander that is supposed to inventory and sub-hand receipt that equipment to the user.

You must make time to do hand receipt maintenance. Your first couple of times, until you get a system in place, may take awhile. But after a few tries, you can easily move through your hand receipts and CPL’s to review and mark changes in an efficient manner and it will not take as long.

I recommend that you do CPL reviews at least monthly and actual hand receipt reviews quarterly. You can set up a system where you aren’t trying to do all your hand receipts in the same month and you spread them out over a three month period of time.

At a minimum, I recommend that you do the following:

Print or save the CPL on the computer. If you feel more comfortable doing this in Excel rather than using a hard copy, please do so. You are saving our trees and we appreciate it. But for some, a hard copy will be the only way for them to truly see where there are problems.

The next thing I do is to look at all of my authorizations. On the CPL, I am initially looking at only the LIN Total and not the individual hand receipt quantities. Do the CTA items (TAC 3) have an authorized quantity that matches the quantity on-hand and on-order? If not, mark that it needs changed. If they have 31 on-hand and 2 on-order, then the Authorization should be 33; but if they have none on-order then the authorization should be 31. If they no longer have any on-hand and on-order, remove the CTA authorization. Once I see that I must adjust the total number, I then look to see where I must make these changes – to what hand receipt do I need to make the changes to?

If an item has no required or authorized quantity and there is an on-hand number, do you have the correct TAC? For instance, if you were issued an item from a fielding team and that item is not on your MTOE, then you probably need to mark it as a TAC 9, with an authorized quantity matching the quantity that you were issued. I find many PBO’s who leave the authorization totally blank for TAC 9 items. If a TM, AR, letter, or other special regulation authorizes that item, then why would there be no quantity in the Authorized column? PBO’s need to put the quantity that is authorized by the TM, AR, or letter in the Authorized column, not put zero. Doesn’t that make sense?

I always kept a file of notes to keep track of all TAC 9 items. I suggest you do the same. Keep it in LIN order. You don’t have to spend a lot of time in typing up formal memo’s. Something simple with dates and explanations, possibly even issue documents to state why you placed this item on the books as a TAC 9. I would write in big letters the LIN at the top.

Note the MTOE/TDA items that are short and place these items on order. Remember to get a funded requisition for the stock funded items. If you get a cancellation back stating that the item is a TPF item, make a note of it. You don’t want to waste your time continually re-ordering that item just to get all of the requisitions cancelled. I suggest that you keep a list of these items on an Excel spreadsheet and keep track of when you are expected to be fielded these items.

In the next example of something that needs further review, the MTOE authorizes 9 PSG-11’s and the unit only has 5 on-hand. Yet, the PBO has placed 1 of them in Delta Company as authorized by a letter (TAC 9) and another in the HQ’s company as excess (TAC 8). Is this right? Should any be listed as excess if the unit overall is short? Yes, the HQ’s company is excess as they have a quantity that is authorized in another company. But the authorization in Delta company should not be a TAC 9, instead it should be listed as excess (TAC 8) as well. So, the PBO needs to fix the authorization in Delta company. One thing I have found here with many PBO’s is that they have listed these unauthorized quantities as TAC 3, CTA authorizations. If the unit is authorized them in other companies as MTOE or TDA, how could another company possibly be authorized the item as a CTA item? MTOE and TDA items can be found in SB 700-20 Chapters 2, 4, and 6. CTA items are authorized in chapter 8. An item cannot be in both paragraphs in the SB 700-20. So, for all you PBO’s out there that have M1’s, Strykers, and other MTOE and TDA items listed as TAC 3 items, get out there and fix your books. Let me reiterate – if an item is in SB 700-20, other than Chapter 8, it should not be listed as TAC 3 on your property book. Only Chapter 8 items should be listed as TAC 3 items. There are a lot of you out there that have TACs to fix.

My next example shows a unit with all of their CYZ-10’s listed as excess (TAC 8). How can that be. CYZ-10’s are necessary to operate the SINCGARS. Upon further research I find that the unit is authorized the new item – the PYQ-10, under the LIN Z00384. That means the PBO needs to move these items to that authorization, not leave them hanging out there all by themselves appearing that they are excess. If the new item had not been a “Z” LIN, the PBO would have been forced to do this during USR because the unit would have been S-4 for that LIN. But because the new item is a “Z” LIN and they don’t get reported for USR until they are S-3 or above, the PBO gets away with this total lack of updating. How is a PBO supposed to know that the PYQ-10 replaced the CYZ-10 one-for-one. Easy, go look at the MTOE on the USAFMSA WebTAADS site, and click on the BOIP button. It will list for you all the BOIPs that have been applied to that MTOE.

Here is another common occurrence, that shouldn’t be – NOT ON CATALOG

In this instance, there is no quantity on-hand and no MTOE/TDA authorization. So, why should there be a TAC 3 authorization? Without a quantity on-hand, and none due-in, this is a worthless entry on the property book. Delete the whole thing and get it off which will clean up your books and not give your hand receipt holders the impression that you don’t know what you are doing as a PBO.

Look at this next example.

The PBO has authorized a LIN that doesn’t exist in their user-created catalog or SLAMIS and then placed an item that is on the catalog under that authorization for a different unit. It appears that the LIN is correct for the NSN listed in SLAMIS but the PBO probably hasn’t aligned that LIN for the company that has the authorization. So, the authorization for the one company needs to be removed and the new LIN authorized for the company that has the equipment. I can’t believe that no one has noticed this aberration before.

Here’s another one from the same PBO:

This time there is a TAC F authorization for a “Z” LIN that is no longer in SB 700-20. Is this authorization still in their MTOE? No. So this is another one of those authorization that is invalid and has no on-hand or on-order. The whole thing just needs to be deleted. How a PBO can tolerate a property book that has NOT ON CATALOG repeated numerous times on their CPL or hand receipts I just don’t understand.

What do you do if you have a “Z” LIN authorized on your MTOE and it is removed from the SB 700-20? What do you do then? If you have no assets, you do nothing. If you have assets, you must get a new NSLIN from SLAMIS and then sub that NSLIN for the LIN you are still authorized on your MTOE – even though that LIN is no longer on SB 700-20. With the current automation efforts between SB 700-20 and MTOE’s, you should not see this very often, but it could still happen. If the “Z” LIN has been changed to a standard LIN and your MTOE still shows the “Z” LIN, you need align your assets to the new LIN and then sub them for the “Z” LIN still authorized by your MTOE. Once the MTOE is updated, you will have to un-sub these items to the new LIN.

To update the hand receipts, the main task, if you have done all the authorizations and catalog issues with the CPL, will be with serial and registration numbers.

In our first example, the PBO has listed improperly the cell and deterctor serial numbers of the M22 alarm. It is obvious because the majority of them are done properly. So, why doesn’t the PBO fix the ones that are obviously wrong? I have no idea. In this case the PBO has everything they need to fix the data; they just choose not to do so. Laziness.

The next example was the most common one for me.

The on-hand balance does not agree with the number of serial numbers listed. In this case there are two on the hand receipt with only one serial number. Many PBO’s I know of will just wait for a commander to bring them the data to fix this. Well, you will be waiting a long time because they have other things to do than fix your property book. In this case the item is a TYQ-93, something that is used by the G-2/S-2. First see if the supply sergeant has two serial numbers on the sub-hand receipt. If not, call the G-2/S-2 and find out what serial numbers they have for the two items they have; type up the DA Form 4949, and have the supply sergeant or commander sign it. Trust me, you will be a big help and they will appreciate the assist. Don’t know what the item is or who might have it, look on the MTOE, Google it, do something!

I just love the next example. It’s the PBUSE computer. There is one on-hand and there is no serial number recorded. If you don’t know who to go to to get that serial number then you have a problem.

You will also encounter issues with invalid serial and registration numbers. But you may not know that they are invalid. I recommend to every PBO that they run the Ground Equipment Verifier within LIW. This tool allows you to align your hand receipts to the TEDB records. Most of these TEDB records were established when the vehicle was assigned its USA registration number. So, you can compare what you have on the property book with what was on the original TEDB document and make changes when appropriate. You can find the Ground Equipment Verifier in LIW under PBUSE Management Tools.

You are all capable of doing these hand receipt maintenance procedures. Your commanders deserve a great hand receipt so that they can sub-hand receipt the equipment properly. That is really important.