What were the medical requirements for a draft deferment due to bone spurs during the Vietnam War?

1. How the draft medical system worked in practice

Local draft boards — often composed of veterans — evaluated registrants for service and could grant “deferments” or medical exemptions among other classifications; those boards had discretion and handled paperwork and letters from physicians when considering medical claims ^[3]. After the 1962 classification changes and especially during the late‑1960s escalation, the system included student deferments (II‑S), hardship/paternity deferments (III‑A), and medical classifications that could remove men from immediate service ^{[3] [5]}.

2. What a “bone spur” deferment meant in reporting

Contemporary and retrospective reporting describes “bone spurs” (often called heel or plantar spurs) as one of the commonly cited medical grounds for a 1‑Y classification — a temporary medical deferment that exempted a registrant from immediate induction ^{[1] [2]}. Coverage of individual cases (notably Donald Trump’s) notes that the diagnosis produced a 1‑Y medical deferment in the fall of 1968 that prevented induction during a year of large draft calls ^{[2] [6]}.

3. The documentation and medical evidence that boards relied on

Available articles indicate local draft boards typically required a physician’s letter or medical documentation to support a medical claim; in the prominent examples cited, podiatrists wrote letters attesting to bone spurs that were presented to a board ^{[6] [2]}. However, later reporting also emphasizes that detailed draft‑era medical records are often sparse or were not preserved, which complicates retrospective verification of individual claims ^[4].

4. How routine or controversial these deferments were

Reporting and historians say medical deferments like bone spurs were among the more visible sources of controversy because they appeared to favor wealthier or better‑connected registrants who could obtain sympathetic physicians or legal help; critics argued the system skewed induction toward lower‑income men ^{[7] [1]}. The perception of unequal access to favorable medical rulings helped fuel public resentment of the draft system and anti‑war sentiment ^{[7] [1]}.

5. Medical substance: why heel spurs could be accepted

Medical commentary explains a heel spur is a bony outgrowth on the calcaneus and can cause pain or functional limits; in some cases, physicians treated it conservatively but recognized it could interfere with marching, standing or other military duties — grounds a board might consider for temporary deferment ^[8]. Sources note that “heel spurs” was a recognized condition among several that could justify a 1‑Y classification, though the severity and permanence varied by patient ^{[1] [8]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and what’s not documented

The sources supplied do not give a complete checklist of medical tests, exact wording required in a physician’s letter, or uniform standards across all draft boards — they document outcomes (classification types) and anecdotal practices rather than central, prescriptive medical criteria ^{[3] [4]}. Detailed Selective Service medical standards or preserved individual medical records from the era are noted as often missing in later reporting, so precise procedural steps for a bone‑spur deferment are not fully documented in these sources ^[4].

7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Journalistic accounts and historians emphasize two competing narratives: one, that bone‑spur and similar medical deferments were legitimate medical judgments accepted by boards ^{[6] [8]}; two, that such exemptions were sometimes produced or amplified by social advantage and influence, fueling claims of systemic unfairness ^{[7] [1]}. Coverage of high‑profile figures’ cases focuses scrutiny on the system’s opacity and on whether social position affected outcomes ^{[9] [6]}.

8. Bottom line for researchers or readers

For an individual trying to understand what was required for a bone‑spur deferment, the record in these sources shows the practical essentials: a physician’s diagnosis and a draft‑board decision that could assign a 1‑Y medical classification — but it also shows the archival limits and controversy over how uniformly those medical rules were applied ^{[2] [4] [3]}. If you need exact contemporaneous medical standards or preserved case records, available reporting notes those documents are often not found in public archives ^[4].