This article examines the legal framework for compensation for psychological injuries sustained during duty in the South African military. The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) of 1993 establishes a no-fault system providing financial support for employees injured at work, including those diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, COIDA primarily applies to civilian workers and excludes military personnel. Soldiers are covered under the Military Pensions Act 84 of 1976, and the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011 – section 5(1) lists compensation to military veterans who sustained disabling injuries, severe psychological and neuropsychiatric trauma or terminal disease resulting from participation in military activities. While PTSD is recognised and compensable under these acts, moral injury remains unacknowledged. Unlike PTSD, which has established diagnostic criteria, moral injury lacks standardisation, resulting in debates among clinicians about its status as a standalone condition or component of PTSD. This absence of diagnostic clarity complicates claims, as successful compensation requires substantial evidence such as psychiatric evaluations, expert testimony, and documentation linking the moral injury directly to military service. Moreover, only psychiatrists can diagnose PTSD, and the lack of a diagnostic tool for moral injury posed further challenges. Neither the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) nor the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) currently includes moral injury, raising questions about medical officers' standards to assess claims. Under the existing legal framework, seeking compensation for PTSD is already complex. Consequently, soldiers or veterans who experience moral injury may not receive adequate recognition or compensation because it is not yet a recognised condition. This article advocates including moral injury as a compensable condition to ensure that affected soldiers and veterans have access to necessary compensation and care. It proposes a process involving rigorous proof requirements alongside support structures to facilitate access to mental health resources and streamlined compensation claims. Advocacy for recognising moral injury and refining claims processes remains crucial to improving outcomes for those affected. Enhanced awareness and legal acknowledgement can lead to better support for veterans and a more comprehensive understanding of psychological injuries sustained in the line of duty.