Have any contemporaneous physicians' notes or draft‑board letters related to other public figures' deferments been released, and what do they reveal about practices then?
Executive summary
Contemporaneous Selective Service records and medical classifications have been released for some public figures and those documents—typically administrative deferment cards and classification letters or exam results—show student deferments and later medical exam-based classifications rather than elaborate physician narratives (Joe Biden’s records were released in 2008 and show student deferments and a later 1‑Y asthma classification) [1] [2]; similar file trails exist for Donald Trump in public FOIA releases showing a 4‑F classification, but reporting has debated the sufficiency and content of the medical explanations [3].
1. What documentary evidence has actually appeared in public reporting
The most concrete contemporaneous materials available in news reporting are Selective Service records and exam classifications: Biden’s Selective Service records were released to the Associated Press by the Obama campaign in 2008 and show five deferments tied to student status, followed by a 1968 physical that produced a 1‑Y classification because of a history of asthma [1] [2]; reporting on Donald Trump points to Selective Service documents obtained under FOIA that record a 4‑F classification and generated debate about whether “bad feet,” bone spurs or other notes justified that status [3].
2. What those documents reveal about practices at the time
Released draft-board cards and classification letters typically record administrative rationale—student deferments, medical classifications such as 1‑Y or 4‑F—and sometimes a brief notation of medical conditions; they tend not to contain long physician narratives, so the records show that deferments were commonly handled through clear bureaucratic categories (student status, medical disqualification) rather than public-facing, detailed physician reports [1] [2] [3].
3. Where richer medical records might live and the limits on access
Federal archives and military medical repositories hold contemporaneous medical and administrative files—collections of the Army Surgeon General and the Army Medical Department include annual reports, clinical returns and biographical files from the mid‑20th century—so primary source material does exist in official holdings [4] [5]; the National Personnel Records Center also stores various military medical treatment records for service members, but privacy rules and record classifications limit public disclosure for many individual medical files [6].
4. Why detailed physician notes are rarely public in these cases
There is no legal obligation for presidents or presidential candidates to disclose full medical records, and longstanding norms and privacy rules have allowed health information to remain private or summarized for public consumption, which constrains the kinds of contemporaneous physician notes that appear in political reporting [7]. Archival practices and modern privacy protections mean that the public record for deferments often comprises classification codes and brief examiner notations, not full clinic charts [6] [8].
5. How reporters and fact‑checkers have parsed the available documents
Fact‑check organizations and press outlets have emphasized that the paper trail—Selective Service deferment cards, campaign‑released records, and classification letters—support administrative explanations: Biden’s deferments were student deferments with a later medical classification for asthma (rated “mostly true” in some fact checks), while Trump’s FOIA‑released files show 4‑F status and launched scrutiny about how physical findings were recorded and adjudicated [1] [2] [3].
6. Bottom line and outstanding gaps in the public record
Public contemporaneous materials have been released for prominent figures, but they are mostly administrative records and classification notations rather than full physician narratives; archives and military repositories preserve richer medical holdings, yet privacy rules and traditional nondisclosure mean that many detailed physician notes or draft‑board deliberation memos are not publicly available in full, leaving some questions about the depth of medical documentation and local draft‑board practices unresolved in public reporting [4] [6] [7].