A brother of one of the 1997 presidential candidates, Ms Adi Roche, was given leave by the High Court yesterday to challenge a decision retiring him from the Army in 1969.
Mr Donal de Roiste, of Cabhsa Inishmor, Ballincollig, Co Cork, claimed he was never given reasons for the decision to retire him and was labelled a terrorist and a subversive.
He said he had been "retired by the President in the interest of service".
The events were resurrected by the media when his sister was campaigning in the Presidential election last year, he added.
Mr de Roiste said he still suffered nightmares and only in the past 12 months, with the aid of a counsellor, had he been able to address the whole episode.
After he was retired, he was unable to get work and was forced to emigrate in 1971, working in manual labour positions. Since his return to Ireland he had secured only part-time employment through FAS schemes.
Mr de Roiste said that around Easter 1969, when serving at Custume Barracks, Athlone, he was assigned to organise a public auction of equipment - cars, trucks and bikes - from Western Command at Clancy Barracks, Islandbridge, Dublin.
The following day he was put under close arrest but was not given the reason. He was brought to Army headquarters and locked in a room. He alleged he was interrogated by relays of Army personnel. Questioning had centred on his attendance at music venues and public bars in Dublin and on those present at such venues.
Following interrogation he was returned to Athlone. No charge was preferred against him. He was interrogated on four or five occasions over the next months. He was refused legal assistance and when he asked for a court martial was advised it was "not an option at this time".
He was assigned to Boyle, Co Roscommon and was assured everything would "work out fine".
But on June 27th, 1969 he was notified he was being retired.
Mr Justice Geoghegan, giving leave to Mr de Roiste to apply for judicial review of the decision to retire him, said at first glance the application might appear to be wildly out of time, in that the events complained of occurred nearly 30 years ago.
But Mr de Roiste was complaining of breaches of his constitutional rights, in particular the right to be heard in his own defence or to make representations before he would be discharged from the Army.
The judge said that in granting leave to Mr de Roiste he was making it clear that the issue of the time lapse could be fully debated when the State was brought into the matter.
He was not making any decision on whether the application for judicial review was too late.