Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What medical criteria in 1968 qualified someone for a draft exemption for bone spurs?
Executive Summary
In 1968, the Selective Service did accept bone spurs as a condition that could lead to medical deferment or classification changes, but the documentary record provided here does not produce a single, detailed checklist of clinical criteria used that year. Contemporary reporting and later analyses show bone spurs were treated as a legitimate medical issue that could yield reclassification (for example, from 1-A to 1-Y or 4-F), and high-profile cases such as Donald Trump’s documented deferments have driven public attention and controversy about how the diagnosis was applied [1] [2] [3]. The available sources emphasize administrative outcomes and disputes over legitimacy rather than a unified 1968 medical standard, leaving ambiguity about precise diagnostic thresholds in the archives summarized here [4] [5].
1. How bone spurs were portrayed as a legitimate medical path out of service
In the materials reviewed, bone spurs are repeatedly described as a medically recognized reason for draft classification changes during the Vietnam era; articles and historical summaries note that men diagnosed with bone spurs sometimes received deferments or were reclassified as limited service or unfit for duty [1] [2] [4]. The sources document administrative outcomes—reclassifications to 1-Y (qualified only for service in wartime or national emergency) or 4-F (unfit for military service)—associated with heel bone spur diagnoses, but they stop short of providing a standard clinical protocol or the measurement thresholds (e.g., radiographic evidence, pain severity, functional limitation) used by draft boards in 1968 [1] [4]. The emphasis across these accounts is on the fact of exemption rather than a preserved operational rubric.
2. The Donald Trump case: emblematic and contested
Multiple pieces note that Donald Trump received medical deferments for bone spurs on both heels that led to classification changes during the Vietnam War period; reporting and fact-checking trace his shift from 1-A to 1-Y and ultimately to classifications that removed him from active conscription potential [3] [1] [2]. These sources also recount disputes about the diagnosis’s legitimacy, including claims that the evaluation was influenced by personal connections or was otherwise an accommodation; investigative accounts and family statements about the diagnosing physician have fueled debates over whether the diagnosis met ordinary clinical standards [6] [1]. The cited materials illustrate how high-profile cases can expose gaps between administrative practice and public expectations of medical rigor.
3. What the available sources do not show — the technical checklist gap
The document set conspicuously lacks a contemporaneous, detailed medical criteria list from 1968 specifying exactly what degree of pain, imaging findings, functional impairment, or physician specialty endorsement was required to secure a bone-spur-related deferment [5] [4] [7]. Historical overviews and media investigations focus on outcomes and anecdotal patterns rather than preserved Selective Service medical board protocols. Because of that lacuna, researchers relying on these sources can confirm that bone spurs were grounds for deferment, but cannot reconstruct a uniform clinical threshold used nationwide in 1968 from the summaries provided [5] [4].
4. Multiple perspectives: administrative, medical, and political lenses
The sources frame the bone-spur issue from three different vantage points: administrative records showing classification changes, medical narratives recounting diagnoses and their implications, and political reporting interrogating fairness and access. Administrative summaries note the existence of classifications like 1-Y and 4-F that bone spurs could trigger [4] [7]. Medical and family accounts recount diagnostic practices and personal circumstances that produced those classifications [6] [2]. Political and investigative pieces emphasize possible conflicts of interest or variations in board decisions, suggesting that social status and connections may have affected outcomes in some high-profile cases [1] [6].
5. Bottom line: what can be asserted and what remains unsettled
From the compiled material, one can assert with confidence that bone spurs were accepted by the Selective Service as a medical reason for draft reclassification or exemption in 1968, and that this acceptance produced real administrative consequences for draftees, including notable public figures [1] [3]. What remains unsettled in these sources is the precise, nationwide medical criteria or standard operating procedures used by draft boards that year—no single, dated checklist or regulatory excerpt is provided in the reviewed documents to resolve disputes about diagnostic rigor or uniformity [5] [4]. Readers should weigh administrative outcomes and later investigative reporting together: the condition was valid grounds for deferment in practice, but questions persist about how consistently and transparently it was applied [1] [6].