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)

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 leslie.carroll@us.army.mil.

Thanks for your time.

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?

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.

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

PodCast: ALARACT 310/08: WORLDWIDE PEO/PM EQUIPMENT FIELDING AND
ACCOUNTABILITY USING PROPERTY BOOK UNIT SUPPLY ENHANCED (PBUSE)

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 https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/558826.

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 (https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/558826).