How did the draft classification process work during the Vietnam War and who received deferments?
Executive summary
The Vietnam-era draft was administered by the Selective Service through a system of classifications that determined who was "available" for induction and who could delay service via deferments such as student, occupational, medical, or hardship statuses; local draft boards initially controlled classifications and calls, and a national lottery was adopted later to equalize order of call [1] [2] [3]. Deferments—most prominently college (II‑S/I‑S), paternity/hardship (III‑A), medical (4‑F), clergy/divinity and occupational categories—were numerous and produced sharp criticism that the system advantaged the more affluent and educated [4] [5] [6].
1. How classifications and local boards operated: a patchwork of rules and local discretion
Every young man was required to register and be classified by local Selective Service boards, which assigned ratings such as I‑A (available for service) and a range of deferments and exemptions; local boards filled quotas and called men in age order prior to the lottery, giving them substantial discretionary power over who served [2] [1] [3].
2. The main deferment categories that delayed or avoided induction
The most consequential deferments included student deferments (I‑S/II‑S for high‑school and college students), hardship/paternity deferments (III‑A for men with dependent children or bona fide family responsibilities), medical disqualifications (4‑F), occupational deferments for “essential” work, and conscientious‑objector classifications—each had formal criteria and could be challenged or renewed [7] [4] [5].
3. Student deferments: how college became a refuge from the draft
College enrollment routinely granted deferments that could be extended through undergraduate (and in some cases graduate) study if the student maintained “satisfactory progress” or met testing/class‑rank requirements, a policy that incentivized enrollment and fueled claims that affluent young men could effectively postpone or avoid service [6] [8] [9].
4. The 1969 lottery and reforms: trying to equalize risk
Widespread criticism of local boards’ discretion and class‑based disparities led to reforms culminating in a 1969 draft lottery based on birthdates and later statutory changes intended to limit long serial deferments and make order of call more transparent; before the lottery, local boards called men from 18½ to 25 years old, oldest first, creating uncertainty and perceived unfairness [1] [10] [11].
5. Who disproportionately received deferments — data and controversy
Analyses from the era and later studies show that millions held deferments—estimates cite around 15 million receiving deferments during 1964–73—with student and paternity deferments especially large; critics and historians argue these paths were disproportionately available to wealthier, whiter men who could afford extended schooling or had social connections, producing a draftee pool heavy with working‑class and lower‑income men [10] [4] [5].
6. Evasion, resistance and gaming the system: the other side of deferments
Beyond formal deferments, many sought to avoid service through medical claims, joining reserves or the National Guard (seen as less likely to be sent to Vietnam), or outright evasion; cultural and political opposition to the war amplified these behaviors and helped prompt legal and administrative changes including elimination or tightening of many deferment categories by the late 1960s and early 1970s [12] [13] [1].
7. Interpretations, agendas and limits of the record
Contemporary government sources and later scholarship framed reforms as efforts to make the draft “fairer,” while activists and veterans emphasized structural inequity; Selective Service materials stress procedural changes and the lottery’s impartiality, whereas university and anti‑war sources highlight socioeconomic effects and local board bias—reporting here relies on the provided documents and does not adjudicate contested personal accounts beyond those sources [1] [14] [4].