The New York Times called it "a victory for gay rights, with implications for the millions of people who use computer on-line services.

In September 1997, while based in Honolulu and serving on the nuclear submarine USS Chicago,[2] McVeigh sent email messages from his America Online (AOL) account that used the screen name "boysrch" and the signature "Tim" when communicating with Helen Hajny, a civilian working as a volunteer Ombudsman.

A Navy disciplinary board held a hearing at which McVeigh acknowledged he had authored the email messages using the "boysrch" account and presented evidence of prior relationships with women.

They concluded that by a preponderance of the evidence McVeigh had engaged in "homosexual conduct" that was grounds for a dishonorable discharge under the then-current DADT policy.

"[3] A representative of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian military personnel, said: "Timothy McVeigh didn't work hard to get on anybody's radar screen.

For years the U.S. Army ignored the racism and anti-government radicalism of former soldier Timothy J. McVeigh, who went on to perpetrate the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

"[7] In Moskos's words: "In simple terms, Senior Chief McVeigh did not 'tell' in a manner contemplated under the policy – he sent an anonymous e-mail which did not list his surname or his Navy connection.

"[5] On January 26, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin granted McVeigh a preliminary injunction barring the Navy from discharging him.

Suggestions of sexual orientation in a private, anonymous email account did not give the Navy a sufficient reason to investigate to determine whether to commence discharge proceedings.

Sporkin quoted DADT guidelines that specified that "creditable information" from a "reliable person" about sexual orientation was required to prompt an investigation.

He noted that "cyberspace ... invites fantasy and affords anonymity," an environment at odds with the regulatory requirement that the subject of an investigation show "a likelihood actually to carry out homosexual acts."

In these days of "big brother", where through technology and otherwise the privacy interests of individuals from all walks of life are being ignored or marginalized, it is imperative that statutes explicitly protecting these rights be strictly observed.On the government's argument that McVeigh had acknowledged owning the AOL account, Sporkin wrote: "That the Plaintiff may have made incriminating statements at the subsequent administrative hearing does not bootstrap the Navy out of its legal dilemma of not only violating its own policy, but also a federal statute in its attempt to charge the Plaintiff with homosexuality.

In effect, it was intended to bring our nation's armed forces in line with the rest of society, which finds discrimination of virtually every form intolerable.

Under the policy as it stands today, gay service members must be permitted to serve their country honorably, so long as they are discrete in pursuing their personal lives.In conclusion, the court granted McVeigh the preliminary injunction and his discharge was overturned as an "immediate and irreparable injury" to his career and reputation.

[4] Clarence Page, writing in the Chicago Tribune, said that the case was "a defining test of the right to privacy in cyberspace and in the military.

"[9] Arthur Leonard of New York Law School commented: "Every one of these cases that comes to the public's attention reinforces the absurdity of the [DADT] policy, and that can only help us in the long run.