Abstract
Moral injury (MI) has recently gained traction in the literature on military veteran distress; however, research often fails to distinguish between two widely cited yet distinct definitions of MI. The two definitions conceptualize mainly perpetration-based experiences and betrayal-based experiences, which have been shown to have different outcomes. U.K. research has mainly conceptualized MI using a perpetration-based model, and it is unclear to what extent a betrayal-based model is relevant to this population. Therefore, through 15 interviews, this study aimed to explore how U.K. military veterans describe their moral beliefs and explore ways in which these were transgressed, in relation to their military service, through the conceptualization of betrayal-based MI. Utilizing reflexive thematic analysis, this article constructed two main themes in relation to our participants experiences of MI: (a) "what's right"-a military moral compass and (b) betrayal of what's right by leaders and systems. Through these themes, our analysis highlights the ways in which participants make sense of what they see as right, or moral, followed by an exploration of the ways in which this was transgressed or betrayed during their time in the military. The findings in this article demonstrate the usefulness of understanding U.K. military veterans' experiences through the conceptual and analytical lens of betrayal-based MI. We conclude with the suggestions that future research should delineate between perpetration and betrayal-based MI to understand the complexities and nuances of experiences and that interventions would benefit from considering specific components of betrayal-based MI when working with military veterans.