What do you all think on the newest DA Form 1687 clarification ?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:15:14 -0400

It states that effective immediately the DA Form 1687 will require both hand written and digital signatures for the identified authorized representatives. Commanders/ Hand Receipt Holder/ Hand Receipt Manager/ Supply Sergeants/ Supply Clerks/ PBO's. here it is. Your thoughts on the newest change ?

Response by SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 7:31 AM

SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:31:39 -0400

The purpose of the new requirement only creates additional time needed to get the form signed properly. The intent of digitial signatures before was to speed up the process since commanders were so busy and out of the office frequently. So now we are back to square one with the requirement of the "wet signiture", so in my opionion the only thing we have done is overwrite what our goal was inititially!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 3:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:30:21 -0400

Dumb idea. A DA 1687 should be signed either digitally or by hand NOT both. I go with either one but digital signing is very beneficial since all you have to do is email it to the relevant individuals, print it out once complete then turn it in to the respective agency.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 8:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:31:22 -0400

A signature card authorizing certain personnel to recieve and order supplies allows for the signature and initials of the personnel. While its probably rarely used for the purpose of validating a given signature versus the base one given on the 1687; is this not what its intent was?
Digital signatures, while convenient, are really only good for digital documents. As soon as its printed out, it really doesn't matter if its digital or hand written.
If you have skills with a computer its not that hard to forge a digital signature block onto a form put into say Microsoft Powerpoint, Adobe Professional.

Response by SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. made Nov 7 at 2014 9:47 PM

SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 21:47:46 -0500

Im currently working on getting mine updated. The purpose oc it is to get a jumpstart on requirements to digitally sign everything and prep for GCSS. With that in mind. I think its not the greatest idea in the world. Its a pain enough to catch up with those on the card to get their signature let alone writing up the delegation portion to the agency's liking. The problems Im running into are:
1. Marines dont understand the reason for a signature card. They question it. They're version is much different.
2. Emailing it out to sections. Have to wait for people to come off leave and if they dont have an email account theres another problem.
3. Cant Hand Carry it to the sections to get it digitally signed.
4. Having to wait for the section to email it along to its people then back to me so that it doesnt overlap.
Those are just a few. There was nothing wrong with the way it was. Its just another added task. As if a supply guy doesnt have enough to do but now has to chase people down via email now too. If it aint broke, lets fix it.
My 2 Bits

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 9:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 09:56:16 -0500

I think that this change is needed in some aspect as far as the conversion to a 'digital army' but why a wet signature? If we are to digitally sign the DA1687, why must we also sign with a handwritten signature? It makes things that much more difficult. I liked the idea I having the capability to digitally sign because you can email it to all parties and they do not have to be near to complete the DA1687. Now it takes extra effort the meet the requirements as someone who is nt present during the signing will have to print the form, sign, scan it, email it: and eventually it may have to be printed and signed again which reduces the quality of the form.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 6:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:00:37 -0400

It should include hand jammed initial and signature...