Which birthdates received the highest draft risk in the 1969 Vietnam lottery and why?
Executive summary
The December 1, 1969 Selective Service lottery assigned draft priority to all birthdates for men born 1944–1950; the first date drawn was September 14 (lottery number 1) and the last was June 8 (lottery number 366), and roughly the first 195 birthdays drawn were at real risk of induction in 1970 [1] [2] [3]. Multiple contemporary and later analyses found the draw produced a strong bias against later‑calendar‑year birthdays — especially several November and December dates — which received many of the low (earlier) draft numbers [1] [4].
1. What the lottery did and which dates were “high risk”
The 1969 lottery was a public draw of 366 capsules — one for each calendar day — to assign an order of call for men born between January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1950; registrants who shared a birthday all received the same lottery position [2]. The first capsule pulled contained September 14 (assigned number 1); later pulls assigned low numbers to many birthdays in November and December so those late‑year births disproportionately ended up among the earliest call numbers [1] [5]. Analysts later noted that the first 195 birthdays drawn became the pool from which most 1970 inductions were called, so birthdays placed among those earliest 195 draws faced the highest practical risk of induction [3] [1].
2. How critics identified the bias
Statisticians and reporters observed clustering in the assigned numbers, finding that the drawing process — one tumbler with day‑cards and one with numbers — did not produce an even month‑by‑month distribution: November and December births tended to receive lower (riskier) draft positions on average [4] [1]. Contemporary critiques argued this pattern violated the law’s requirement for a truly random selection; courts later rejected demands to redo the lottery even as analysts used the data to redesign later lotteries [6] [1].
3. Which specific dates were worst off
Available sources name particular standout dates from the broadcast and datasets: September 14 was drawn first (lottery #1) and June 8 last (#366) [1] [5]. Beyond those anchors, multiple compiled datasets list every date’s assigned number (the raw table is available), and researchers have used that table to show which November/December birthdays landed among the early 195 calls [7] [4]. Available sources do not give a single canonical short list in prose of “top 10 worst dates” beyond noting the November–December clustering, but the underlying table of results contains the full ordering [7].
4. Scale and human effect
Approximately 850,000 men were affected by the 1969 lottery, and because only the first roughly 195 birthdays’ holders were actually called in 1970, being assigned one of those early positions could mean being required to undergo physicals and face induction; this produced intense anxiety and political backlash [3] [1]. The lottery’s apparent unfairness strengthened opposition to the draft and fed protests already underway in 1969 [1].
5. Alternative explanations and contested points
There are two competing readings in the sources. One view treats the lottery as a well‑intentioned move toward equalizing who could be drafted, noting it replaced an age‑ordered system and was supposed to be random [2] [8]. The other view, supported by subsequent statistical analyses and contemporary critics, says the mechanical process used (capsules and tumblers) introduced systematic bias — particularly disadvantaging late‑year birthdays — so the result was neither practically fair nor truly random [4] [1]. Courts ultimately declined to invalidate the lottery despite the statistical evidence [6].
6. Where to find the exact worst dates
If you want the precise ranking (for example, the absolute top 10 birthdates that drew the earliest numbers), consult the raw 1969 lottery table published by data repositories and historians — the RandomServices dataset and other reproductions list every date with its assigned number [7] [5]. Secondary analyses using that table (visualizations, statistical write‑ups) explicitly show the November/December concentration of low numbers [4].
Limitations: my account relies only on the supplied reporting and data summaries; the sources collectively document the September 14 / June 8 anchors, the November–December clustering, and that the first ~195 dates were the practical induction pool, but a plain textual “top 10 worst dates” list in prose is not present in these excerpts — the full day‑by‑day table is the primary source for exact rankings [1] [7] [4].