Publication date: Aug. 31, 2013

The claim

Ted Nugent was a draft dodger. Really.

The background

Regarding last week's Fact Checker sidebar, Mark Nelson of Sparks wrote, "(Fact Checker) said that since Ted registered for the draft and did not go to Canada, he is not a draft dodger. A quick Google check shows the definition of a draft dodger is someone who 'evades compulsory military service.' It says nothing about Canada or failure to register. By his own admission, Nugent faked symptoms and used drugs to keep from being drafted. Nugent is a draft dodger."

The original column was more interested in whether it's hypocrisy for someone to hold different views at age 64 than at age 18. The question of draft-dodging during the Vietnam War, when some young men were forced to serve by the government, probably wasn't given its due.








(In an effort to keep politics out of the discussion, Fact Checker did not use Nugent's name, just the case's details, in correspondence.)


(Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly — as well as Bill Clinton — all got student deferments during the Vietnam War and are not draft dodgers. Clinton also got help from friends in high places and didn't follow through on some promises to avoid service but is legally considered not to have violated the Military Selective Service Act.)

Nugent's student deferment went away for reasons that are not clear. Jennifer Burke, also with the Selective Service System, told Fact Checker that common reasons could be "he a) finished school or finished the semester, b) was not a full-time student, maintaining good grades, or c) did not return to school for whatever reason."


Regardless, it's clear the initial student deferment was legal. Nugent has said it was given so he could attend Oakland Community College.


So everything hinges on that medical exam. If he faked a bad result, he's a draft dodger. If he didn't, he's not.

"By way of clarification," Burke said about 4-F qualifications, "the 'physical' category included psychiatric disorders; 'mental' related to solely intelligence test scores; 'moral' was determined by the registrant's court record."

There are no government records on Nugent that could shed light.

Burke said, "The only remaining records for registrations prior to 1980 are the registration card and classification record. Any other documents, medical records, results of physical examinations, etc., would have been placed in the registrant's file folder. These file folders were routinely destroyed when the registrant reached age 26 years, or age 35 if the individual received a deferment. Any remaining file folders in existence in 1978 were destroyed as approved by the archivist of the United States."


Of course, Fact Checker reached out to the Nugent camp. Publicist Linda Peterson was asked: "Did Ted Nugent try to make himself seem unfit for duty during his military physical for the Vietnam draft?"

She responded, "Nope, urban legend."

Fact Checker asked what was the reason for Nugent's 4-F deferment and didn't get a reply.

The verdict

Fact Checker gave too narrow of a definition of "draft dodger" last week, as Mark Nelson of Sparks correctly pointed out.

But even with a more expansive definition, there's still no proof Nugent dodged the draft. If he's a liar who can't be trusted now, that doesn't make his word more trustworthy in 1977.

Plausible arguments can be made for why Nugent would've made up the 1977 story that's the source of draft-dodging claims — the Vietnam War was unpopular and it would be very rock 'n' roll to claim you pulled one over on The Man.

It's also worth noting Nugent has long been anti-drug, railing regularly against the "hippies" of the 1960s who zoned out — often fatally — on drugs. So if he were going to make up a story to a magazine, a pro-drug one would make sense.

And plausible arguments can be made for why he would've made up the 2006 story about the first one being a hoax — he wanted to protect his credibility as a patriotic conservative spokesman.

The only objective conclusion that can be made is there's not enough evidence one way or the other.

That said, if you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you must have better evidence than a single story in High Times magazine that has since been retracted by the source.

Truth Meter: 4 (out of 10)

Truth Meter and contact info

Fact Checker columns by Mark Robison are rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being absolutely true with no gray area, 5 being down the middle with good points by both sides, 1 being false with no gray area and 0 being intentionally, maliciously or foolishly false.

Email if you've got any queries about claims you've heard people make.

Read or Share this story: