“During Mr. Almy’s deployment in Iraq that began in 2004, the Air Force prohibited Airmen from using private email accounts. Airmen in Iraq were forced to use government-provided computers and email accounts for personal oorrespondence. … Mr. Almy therefore used his Air Force email account for personal emails.” – Michael D. Almy, Anthony J. Loverde, and Jason D. Knight v. United States Department of Defense, et al. December 13, 2010.

The assertion in the lawsuit is not that his e-mails WERE private, but that he claims he had an “expectation of privacy” [as well as a violation of Air Force procedures in how they became aware of them]. That contradicts any credible reason for anyone to believe that DADT would suddenly be “fair” in this war zone instance when e-mails, files, photos, etc., found on one’s personally owned computer within one’s barracks are legally subject to search.

What is indisputable is that discharge under DADT did not require a “PUBLIC statement” that one is gay. The “at least one email from Mr. Almy to another man discussing same-sex conduct” acknowledged in his lawsuit was all that was necessary. Mr. Almy might have been inexplicably ignorant of that at the time, but his various recent activities making him one of SLDN’s poster boys should have given him multiple opportunities to learn.

The passage about “benefits” may only be poorly expressed as they can mean a variety of things. Having received an “honorable discharge,” he would NOT have lost, e.g., access to “GI Bill” education assistance or free/lost cost medical care at Veterans Administration facilities. What his lawsuit does address is the fact that he lost the opportunity to serve until he was eligible for retirement. Upon retirement, he would have drawn an annual pension worth several hundred thousand dollars over his expected lifetime.