A Lead Mechanic working a B737-700 aircraft; describes the paperwork difficulties he encounters when trying to alert Maintenance Planning and Engineering; about a time limited deferral that had the incorrect gear door location noted on a write-up. The required gear door re-inspect; was not accomplished within the deferral time limits.

Narrative

Working as Lead on a B737-700 aircraft. Terminated a scheduled work package assigned; one of those items was a write-up. Note: No correct location indicated in discrepancy header; only states nose gear. Upon inspection; no damage noted to left hand nose gear door or left hand main gear doors; the damage described was located on right hand (R/H) nose gear door. I then used the computer scanner; thinking this was a possible typing error on original non-routine card (NRC). But; the NRC did state left hand gear door. (So); I generated a new NRC number in the action taken block. I stated the correct location complied with the 400 hour re-inspection per the structural repair manual (SRM); and stated it should continue on previous Inspection Intervals. My error was; I closed the re-inspect action (requirement); instead of selecting the time limited deferral box. In a fact finding (meeting); it was stated that when I selected that box item on the write-up; the original NRC would be closed out; and my new NRC would carry the burden of damage on the new location. Still; Maintenance Planning would have plenty of time to correct the location and track correct flight hour/inspection; due to the fact; that my Inspection (of the Nose gear door); gave a fresh 400 hours to work with. The NRC does not state the item will close the original discrepancy; nor does the maintenance planning manual (MPM) instruction work sheet reference the MPM. The NRC form; falls short of what I was trying to accomplish. Example: If there was a crack 1/2 inch long that propagated to 1 inch long; the SRM would give new inspection criteria; inspection intervals and permanent repair procedures.