Y-chromosome testing has become more prevalent in recent years as a means of identifying forensic samples using STRs or identifying biomarkers for disease or determining geographic origins of populations. Additionally, Y-chromosome analysis is especially useful in paternity testing as the Y chromosome is inherited paternally and the male-specific region of the Y chromosome does not undergo any recombination events, allowing the genotypic data of both the father and son to be identical. Though in most cases a father-son pair will have the same Y-allelic data, random mutations like allele insertions and deletions can occur, which can interfere and result in incorrect conclusions in regards to paternity testing, forensic analysis, or genealogy. Though the exact mechanism of Y loci mutability is unknown, postulations of factors that can cause mutations have been studied, as well as attempts to determine mutation rate specific to each locus. A multi-generational pedigree consisting of 9 males was analyzed using two different methodologies: capillary electrophoresis and next-generation sequencing. The samples were amplified using either a ForenSeq™ Signature DNA Prep Kit (Verogen, San Diego, CA) or a YFiler™ Plus PCR Amplification Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Between the two methods, five Y-STR loci were identified as being discordant between a father-son pair. Next-generation sequencing identified an allele insertion at DYS385a/b, resulting in a potential tri-allelic locus, but was disproved after comparison with the capillary electrophoresis data of the sample. The capillary electrophoresis data identified four discordances between father-son pairs, one of which was an allele mutation with a gain of a repeat at DYS458. At DYS 389II, an allele insertion was identified, but was contradicted after comparison with the next-generation sequencing data. There was a potential null allele at DYS518 and either an OL variant allele or a 2 base pair deletion at DYS481. Following peak height ratio, stutter, and comparative analysis between the genotypic data of the two analysis methods, two of these discordances were proven to be errors, one was a definitive mutational event, and the other two could neither be confirmed nor denied due to differences in loci tested in each kit.