What birthdates were drawn first in the 1969 Vietnam draft lottery?

1. What people actually claimed — the headline facts that matter now

The key, repeatable claim across the dataset is that September 14 was the very first birthdate drawn in the November 1969 Selective Service lottery, making all registrants born on that date between 1944 and 1950 assigned the lowest lottery number and earliest potential induction ^{[3] [4]}. Secondary claims that appear consistently are the identity of the next four drawn dates — April 24, December 30, February 14 and October 18 — which several analyses list as numbers 2 through 5 in that order ^{[2] [5]}. Another explicit factual claim recorded in the analyses is that the lottery assigned the label “001” to the September 14 cohort, a notation used in later summaries and tables of the lottery’s outcome ^{[4] [6]}. These are empirical statements about the sequence actually drawn and the administrative labels attached by Selective Service.

2. Where the sources converge — robust points of agreement

Across the provided documents there is strong convergence on the top-of-the-list results: September 14 as #1, followed by the four dates listed above. Contemporary and retrospective accounts repeat this sequence, and summaries intended to explain the lottery’s practical effect all treat those draws as settled facts ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. Several sources also converge on procedural facts: the lottery used capsules representing calendar dates, the drawing determined induction order for men born from 1944–1950, and the numbering of dates translated directly into induction priority. The repetition of the same top five dates in independent analyses indicates that these particular outcomes are reliably documented across the materials provided ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Where the record diverges — fairness, randomness and statistical critique

The analyses diverge when interpreting whether the drawing was truly random and fair. Multiple critiques reported that the drawing method inadvertently clustered birthdates near the end of the year toward higher priority, creating a nonuniform distribution that statistically disadvantaged certain birth months ^{[1] [7]}. Some technical analyses and later statistical reconstructions argue the mixing of capsule batches and the method of selecting from bowls created patterns inconsistent with ideal randomness; other summaries emphasize the raw sequence without detailed statistical judgment, focusing instead on social consequences ^{[1] [4]}. These differences reflect distinct analytical aims: some sources prioritize documenting draws and their labels, while others focus on testing the protocol for randomness and identifying systematic bias.

4. Extra details that add important context about who was affected

Beyond the drawn dates, the record notes procedural and human-impact details that matter for interpreting consequences: the lottery assigned the lowest numeric designator to September 14 registrants (lottery number 1), and some accounts include administrative mechanics such as alphabetical tie-breakers for registrants with identical birthdates (one analysis mentions a first-letter tiebreaker being used) ^{[8] [4]}. The broader influence of these numeric assignments fed national reactions; sources in the dataset link the lottery’s outcomes to increased public scrutiny and political mobilization because the distribution of draft risk appeared to fall disproportionately on particular cohorts and birth months ^{[2] [7]}. Those administrative details are central to understanding why the order of a handful of drawn dates had outsized social effects.

5. Final synthesis — what to accept and what to scrutinize next

Accept the primary empirical finding: September 14 was drawn first and assigned lottery number 1, with April 24, December 30, February 14, and October 18 following in the top five as reported by multiple analyses ^{[3] [2] [4]}. Scrutinize claims about overall fairness: several posthoc statistical critiques conclude the drawing procedure produced clustering that undercut true randomness, an important conclusion for understanding the lottery’s political fallout but one that relies on methodological reconstruction rather than the raw draw order itself ^{[1] [7]}. The documentation provided reflects both the settled facts of the sequence and the contested interpretation of whether the process treated registrants impartially; those two strands together explain why the lottery became a focal point of controversy.