What do all those abbreviations (4-F, et al) mean? Can one be exempt because of religious reasons (for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Could one be exempt because of pacifism?
Thanks in advance.
What do all those abbreviations (4-F, et al) mean? Can one be exempt because of religious reasons (for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses)? Could one be exempt because of pacifism?
Thanks in advance.
Why worry about it? There’s no draft now. So you have to register in the event there is one. Yes, one can be exempt for religious reasons. They are called conscientious objectors.
I really don’t know what “4-F” stands for, but I’m sure some one here will know. I know what it means: that you’re physically unable to serve in the military. I guess there are different classifications: A, B, C, etc., and different rankings in each class.
It’s been nearly 30 years since I had to worry about this, but let’s see wht I could remember.
In the Vietnam era (I don’t know about other times) draft-eligible men were classed from 1 to 5. In each cass there were different categories (not A to Z, but different letters used to describe each category).
1-A was the first priority to call for the draft, a man of the most desired age group with no obvious handicps or other reason not to be drafted. 5-A (the lowest category I recall) signified being to old to be drafted.
Some of the other categories I remember were 1-HS (was still attending high school), 2-S (enrolled and progressing toward a college degree) 1-Y (some impairment that would prevent a full combat role, but otherwise draftable.) I think all of category 3 was given over to people who wouldn’t be drafted because of some reason (previous military service, current service in the National Guard, working in a job vital to the national interest, etc.)
Conscientous objectors were given two categories, if I recall, 1-O and 3-O. 1-O objectors would not serve in combat, but could be drafted into non-combat positions. A lot of medics were 1-O draftees. 3-O objectors (those who objected to any form of miltary service) would not be drafted, but were expected to serve in some sort of non-military form of national service, like the Peace Corps.
Earlier in the Vietnam War, it was not unusual for a draftee to declare himself a pacifist. By the time I was eligible, draft boards were only accepting those who were members (better be a long-time member, too!) of religions that had taken a stance against war, like Quakers. I suppose if someone had a life-long history of public opposition to war (tough to do when you’re 18) he might have wangled a “philosophic” status as a CO.
Since there is currently no draft (only registry “in case” of a draft), there is no deferral system. If the draft was started up, again, there is no reason why the same calssification system would by used–and no reason why it would not.
In the old classification system, the numbers basically identified how close you were to seeing basic training and the letters identified why you had that number. Of course, being a government “designed” system, it was not always too consistent.
Selective Service Classifications, 1948 - 1976
The 1-H classification was created around 1971 or 1972 for guys who had missed being picked (successfully holding onto deferments until their local board didn’t want them), but who had no other reason not to be 1-A. (I don’t know the exact year it was created, but it was not on the back of my card from a few years earlier.)
They use Arabic numerals, but I remember 1-A being I-A and 2-S being II-S. I think it was a local (or regional) board decision.
Thanks, all. I was just curious – I saw the SSS poster in school a couple of weeks ago (“A good team is only a good team if it has a strong bench”) and became annoyed that they still had the thing, even if it was “just in case.”
I suppose secular humanists wouldn’t be exempt despite believing in the sanctity of human life and everything…
I think 4-F is if you’re crazy or have some kind of mental problem and then you didn’t have to go. [catch-22 reference] Then again I thought all the pilots were required to be crazy. [/catch-22 reference]
Kind of OT, but anyway, this guy that works with my uncle told him about a “Draft party” or something, when the draft happened and they were announcing it or whatever, the guy and some other friends gathered. After the first date they called out there was a loud obscenity shouted from the back of the room and a chair went flying through the air and in to the TV. Sounded kind of ULish to me, but . . .
Nah, 4F includes a whole bunch of reasons why you are unsuitable, the majority being medical. I think 4F includes homosexuality and other “mental conditions.” I remember that during the VietNam war, someone published a whole book of obscure medical conditions that would get you classified as 4F.
[aside]
What, that someone would be pissed at being drafted to go to a foreign country and possibly be horribly maimed or killed? What’s so “ULish” about that. It’s not even that interesting or wacky, like most ULs. Argh, I hate it when Dopers cry UL at the slightest provocation.
[/aside]
All 18 year-olds were classified 1-H. None were drafted until their 19th birthday, when they were automatically reclassified 1-A (unless otherwise deferred). I had a low draft number (59), but was not drafted because I was 18 until June 30, 1973; the draft law expired on July 1, 1973. For one day, I was technically 1-A and eligible for the draft. Dodged a bullet, so to speak.
Here is a link to the list of classifications used during the Vietnam War era
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/draft.htm
There is a classification system ready to use if the draft were ever reestablished and it appears that the numbers mean different things now
BobT’s first link appears to be from the mid-60s. I know that several categories were modified later. (E.g., IV-D was split with a new II-D classification assigned to divinity students who had not yet gotten a bachelors degree and II-M was established with a similar view toward pre-med students.)
I have no dispute with Fear Itself’s post, except to re-iterate that 1-H was a later category (note that it does not show up on BobT’s first link) and that it was (also) assigned (probably not exclusively) to guys the draft board did not want to bother with. When I got out of college, I dutifully sent a note to my draft board that I was no longer a student, expecting to get re-classified 1-A. Instead I got back a 1-H (because we had already begun withdrawing troops from Nam and my local board (that included Pontiac, MI), had their full complement of cannon fodder).
Well, I didn’t see it directly and neither did my uncle, so I didn’t want to appear ignorant by saying how it was true and then having someone else say, “funny, that happened to my uncle too!” Then again, it is probably a common practice to throw chairs when one is drafted, I know I would. Sorry if I hit a nerve.
I bet if they ever started up the draft again, they would do away with the exemption for being homosexual, or at least try and find some way of requiring proof. The negativity associated with being a homosexual has diminished since the last time we had the draft, people aren’t being imprisoned for being gay anymore. I know I would have no qualms about claiming to be homosexual or bisexual if I could be drafted for a war I did not believe in (and if it was one I believed in, I would probably volunteer). Of course, now I am 28 and married so I probably wouldn’t get drafted anyway…
Among the first people to be drafted if we ever did need to do such a thing would be a lot of women! This is because in addition to raising a general levy of “canon fodder”, the law also allows specific categories of people (professions, trades, and so on) to be called upon if needed. For example, you remember the MAS*H situation (Korean War)where they drafted doctors because of a shortage of medical personnel. In those days, doctors were predominantly men and nurses were women. This has changed, and now I understand about 55% of MDs are female. Additionally, many medical professionals have not chosen the military or the military reserves as careers, so that if we ever did get into an involved high-casualty (“major”) war, almost certianly we would be obliged to very quickly press a substantial number of doctors into service and in so doing we would be obliging women to don the uniform —drafting women. While the law currently allows the drafting of people from specific professions and trades, it is written in such a way as to assume these are all males (because when the law was written that was in fact the case). The Selective Service is well aware of this, but has not approached Congress for a change in the law as they don’t want to raise the whole issue of drafting women for anything, or even to raise the debate if a draft law is still needed at all. IMHO, it isn’t.
As the military becomes more high-tech, the skills needed to be a serviceperson require more lengthy training, greater professionalism, and more maturity than can be had from a short-term conscriptee. The technology of modern US equipment is such that the meaning of the term “force multiplier” is obvious even to those unfamiliar with military jargon. We have plenty of force via technology; the need for arming and fielding the teeming millions grows less and less with each new weapons system deployed.
Compliance with the current SSS registration scheme is poor at best, and is in fact virtually nonexistent in major urban areas. The SSS knows this, and (at least in the early 1990’s) was mandating that records of registration compliance be shredded after they were only a few months old (3 or 6, I believe). Since the records in question contained no Privacy Act Information or classified information, one could only assume that the reason for their mandated instruction was to keep them out of the hands of the public. During the Vietnam era, the complaint was often raised that it was inner-city young men who were doing the “cannon fodder” duties. With the current pattern of SSS registration compliance, if we had to go with the current crop of potential draftees, we would find mostly corn-fed country boys shouldering rifles in the front lines.
What potential registrees ought to consider before deciding to register (or not) is that failure to do so WILL prevent them from being considered for civil service jobs, federal student loans, and a lot of other similar benefits. My frank advice to young people in this regard is that the probability of there ever being a draft is small at best. It is in their best interest to register, so they should do so.
The reality of the SSS is that registration compliance is so spotty and SSS-acceptable grounds for exemption are now so wide open that if they did activate the draft, it would be so obviously inequitable that the likelihood of anyone actually being called from it into uniform would be virtually zero. Thus, a potential registrant has virtually no risk of going into war involuntarily, and a lot more to risk (by way of losing out on benefits and so on) by not registering.