My dad has seen a lot of history unfold before his very eyes. He witnessed the tummultous 60s, was almost sent to Vietnam, and was a big part of the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s. He's been all around the world constantly for almost 40 years now, and is a wealth of information on the history and politics of the United States as well as many other countries he has traveled to extensively (mostly Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and China)
With all that being said, he is a very politically opinionated man. He tells objective facts, but always tells you his opinion of it afterwards.
If I see a thread that relates to one of my dad's stories from back in the day, is it valid to construct an answer and put "and my dad said 'x' about that because he was there in 'this' capacity"?
Short answer is no. see here for in depth rules discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40mle4/rules_roundtable_3_explaining_the_no_personal/
Not for the purposes of this sub; it's an arbitrary distinction but probably one of those lines that needs to be drawn to keep the sub functional, less every question have a bunch of a-guy-I-know-saids.
That said:
If someone was writing a book on the American tech industry in the eighties, and interviewed your father as part of the research materials for said book, that interview would absolutely constitute a primary source on the time period. Interviews, firsthand accounts, and other similar things are gold mines for some areas of research. The entire concept of oral history is based on recognizing the importance of those kinds of firsthand accounts, even if they aren't the be-all-end-all for anything.
(A particularly fun job I had for a few years involved sorting out a museum's oral history collection. If you laid all the interviews end to end they had something like four months' worth of content, just in that one area of their broader collection alone. It was kind of glorious.)