When the System Lets You Down: Why Betrayal Matters During the Military-to-Civilian Transition

 Walt Sowden, Roland Hart, & George A. Bonanno

May 12, 2026

For decades, researchers and clinicians alike have focused largely on combat exposure as the primary driver of posttraumatic stress in military veterans. More recently, attention has turned to another factor: experiences that violate deeply held moral beliefs or expectations. These experiences, often referred to as potentially traumatic morally injurious events (PMIEs), may including transgressive acts one commits, witnesses, or experiences at the hands of others, like being betrayed. While all of these exposures have been linked to distress, far less is known about how they shape change in symptoms and functioning during the military-to-civilian transition, a period marked by major psychological, social, and identity shifts. 

We recently conducted a prospective study following U.S. Army soldiers from roughly six months before separation to six months after leaving active duty. This design allowed us to ask a simple but important question: which kinds of moral exposures matter most during the transition out of the military?

Betrayal Stands Apart

The answer was striking. Among three commonly studied PMIE subtypes--self-attributed transgressions, other-attributed transgressions, and experienced betrayal by trusted individuals or institutions--only betrayal-related PMIEs consistently predicted worsening outcomes across the military-to-civilian transition.

Soldiers who reported greater exposure to betrayal before separation showed higher post-separation posttraumatic stress symptoms, even after accounting for their baseline symptoms, combat exposure, and a wide range of demographic and service-related factors. Betrayal was also the only PMIE subtype that predicted greater difficulty with reintegration into civilian life, including challenges related to work, relationships, and community functioning, above and beyond pre-transition stress levels.

In contrast, self-attributed moral transgressions (e.g., actions that violated one's own moral code) and other-attributed transgressions (e.g., witnessing others' immoral acts) were associated with distress prior to separation but did not predict changes in symptoms or reintegration after leaving the service once betrayal was taken into account.

Why Might Betrayal Matter More During Transition?

Betrayal differs from other moral violations in one critical way: it is fundamentally relational and institutional. Betrayal experiences often involve leaders, systems, or organizations that service members depended on, not only for safety, but also for meaning, fairness, and identity.

During active service, the military provides a coherent moral framework. During transition, that framework quickly loosens. Leaving the military is a demanding and often highly stressful psychological transition in its own right, one that unfolds over months, and often years, as service members renegotiate their roles, identity, and understanding of life. When unresolved betrayal is carried into that mix, veterans may find themselves questioning not just what happened, but who they can trust. That erosion of trust may interfere with recovery in ways taht fear-based or guilt-based distress does not.

Our findings also suggest that betrayal's impact extends beyond symptoms. Even after accounting for posttraumatic stress, betrayal predicted greater difficulty navigating civilian roles and relationships. This points to pathways that include moral disillusionment, identity disruption, and impaired trust--factors that are not always directly targeted in symptom-focused care. 

Clinical and Public Health Implications

Several implications follow from our work.

First, betrayal should be assessed explicitly, particularly during the transition period. Not all PMIEs carry the same downstream risk, and screening tools that collapse across subtypes may miss clinically meaningful distinctions. 

Second, clinicians working with transitioning service members may want to attend carefully to issues of trust, respect, institutional disillusionment, and relational meaning, even when classic PTSD symptoms appear stable. Reintegration struggles may reflect moral and relational injuries rather than fear-based trauma alone.

Third, our findings underscore the importance of transition-focused interventions that address moral and relational challenges alongside employment, education, and health care navigation. Programs that incorporate meaning-making, values clarification, and relational repair may be especially relevant for veterans grappling with betrayal. 

Finally, at a systems level, betrayal-related distress invites reflection on how institutions communicate, support, and take responsibility during and after separation. Preventing moral injury is not solely an individual-level task.

A Note on Interpretation

This study examined general stress-related posttrauamtic symptoms, not DSM-defined PTSD diagnoses, and effect sizes were modest. Still, the pattern was consistent: when it comes to adjustment during the military-to-civilian transition, betrayal deserves special attention. 

Differentiating moral injury exposures is not about labeling veterans, but rather about improving our ability to listen, assess, and respond to what actually shapes their paths forward.

Discussion Questions

1. How might betrayal-related moral injury show up differently in clinical practice, compared to fear-based trauma or guilt-based distress?
2. What would it look like to integrate moral and relational repair in existing transition or reintegration programs?
3. How can institutions reduce the risk of perceived betrayal during the separation process?

About the Authors

Reference Article

Sowden WJ, Hart R, Bonanno GA. Potentially morally injurious events and posttraumatic stress symptom change across the military-to-civilian transition: A prospective study. J Trauma Stress. 2026 Jan 28. doi: 10.1002/jts.70049. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41605527.

References