How did the Selective Service define and document bone spur medical deferments during the Vietnam draft?

1. How the Selective Service categorized medical unfitness: classifications and common labels

During the Vietnam era the Selective Service used a numeric classification system to mark a registrant’s availability or exemption for service; medical exemptions that made someone unfit for military duty were coded under classifications such as 4‑F (medically unfit), and other deferments (student, occupational, paternity) used different codes—these medical classifications covered a range of conditions, including those described colloquially as “bone spurs” ^{[5] [2] [1]}.

2. What “bone spur” deferments looked like in public reporting

Contemporary and retrospective reporting repeatedly cites heel spurs or “bone spurs” as a specific medical reason recorded for at least some deferments; multiple outlets recount that a diagnosis for a problem with the heels resulted in a medical exemption in prominent cases, and journalists treat “bone spurs” as a shorthand used in biographies and profiles ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

3. Who decided and how those medical claims were documented

Local draft boards reviewed medical evidence and made classification decisions; the system relied on submitted medical records, physician statements, and board interpretation. The Selective Service’s structure meant paperwork and local board rulings determined whether a condition led to a deferment or reclassification ^{[2] [6]}. Available sources do not give the step‑by‑step form titles or exact medical documentation language used in every case—specific documentary templates are not described in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).

4. Political controversy and perceptions of inequity

News and historical summaries emphasize that medical deferments—especially bone‑spur claims—became politically charged because critics argued that wealthier or better‑connected registrants had greater ability to obtain favorable medical rulings or private physicians to document conditions; that perception is central to modern discussions about notable public figures who avoided service ^{[4] [3] [2]}.

5. How this fit into broader deferment practice and reforms

Bone‑spur medical deferments were one thread in a larger system where student status, paternity, occupation and other reasons could delay or exempt men from service. Because deferments were numerous and seen as unevenly distributed, reforms followed: for example, by 1970 President Nixon curtailed some non‑medical deferments (occupation, paternity) and subsequent changes shifted the draft to a lottery and different priority rules ^{[7] [6]}.

6. Limits of the available sources and unanswered procedural details

The provided materials document that bone‑spur diagnoses were cited and that boards made medical classifications, but they do not supply the precise Selective Service internal definitions, the standardized criteria or checklist used to diagnose a bone spur for draft classification, nor the exact wording of medical reports or the statistical frequency of bone‑spur 4‑F rulings (not found in current reporting). For procedural minutiae—sample forms, the medical exam protocol, or raw board‑level adjudication data—those records are not present in the cited sources (not found in current reporting).

7. Competing interpretations and what to watch for in sources

Contemporary news sources and history pieces agree that bone‑spur deferments occurred and became symbolic of draft‑inequality ^{[3] [4]}. Some accounts present bone spurs as straightforward medical findings resulting in legitimate exemptions ^[1], while critics argue the system allowed manipulation by the privileged—both perspectives appear in the supplied reporting ^{[4] [2]}. Readers should note potential agendas: profile pieces about public figures emphasize personal narratives and political implications ^{[3] [4]}, while institutional histories focus on classification mechanics and reform ^{[6] [7]}.

If you want, I can search for primary Selective Service documents (medical examination forms, classification manuals, or local board rulings) that would show the exact language and documentation procedures used to grant bone‑spur deferments.