First of all, please correct your records with the spelling of my last name.     It is a proud Italian name and is spelled h-i-o-n-e, with a "h."     See above please.

Yes, per your notice, my claim would definitely be affected in the affirmative by the landmark ruling of the Court on 16 Aug 06, Haas v. Nicholson.

Although, my appeal commenced prior to this decision on or about May 24, 2006 where I claim "boots on the ground" in Vietnam, ie, visitation thereof intransit to Thailand.

Your DRO chose to ignore the additional Court decisions cited in favor of veterans transported between CONUS and final destinations cited, leaving that to the Court to decide. Since then, I was able to obtain a Mac Flight data sheet which only confirms such transportation corridors (via Vietnam and Tan Son Knut Intl in Saigon.)

I am not arguing my grounds for appeal here.     I am simply pointed out the injustice of your notice to me and futhermore, your own (unlawful) stay memorandum of 21 Sep 06 indicates that those referred to in 4 (b) claiming "setting foot in Vietnam" should go forward.

In Ribaudo v. Nicholson, the Court directed the agency to rescind this same memorandum and furthermore, and I quote: (2) ordered that "[t]he Secretary will proceed to process the appeals that were stayed in accordance with that unlawful memorandum 'in regular order according to [their] place on the docket'" and will apply this Court's decision in Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 257 (2006), appeal docketed, No. 07 7037 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2006) to those appeals.

In so much as Mr. Foger, representing the Las Vegas office of the Senate Majority Leader, the Honorable Harry Reid, is under the impression that my appeal is properly on the Court calendar, but would not provide him with any information whatsoever, I wish to verify same.

My representative from AMVETS also is under a different impression; that my appeal is on hold, affected by this unlawful stay of Haas v. Nicholson.     Yes, my claim has been improperly denied in the rating decision and the DRO conference review and consistently, the DA Form 2139 references to "CZ" and "EM CZ JAN 68" which has caused me undue financial hardship and medical deterioration due to my stage of diabetic complications and kidney failure.

Page 2
Re:     354/21-54       C 25 511 827     Picchione, Francis J.   RA 11 618 891   4 July 2007

Please respond to this demand notice within the next 30 days or no later than 16 Aug 07. If I find that my appeal is still on hold, or you chose not to respond, then I will proceed with the class-action lawsuit for those appellants with a definitive claim of "boots on the ground."

Warmest regards,


Francis J. Picchione
Army Veteran

cc:     AMVETS, NVLSP, Senator Reid's Office (LV) and VA General Counsel Office (DC)