This makes a lot of sense. People are fundamentally changed by their experiences in combat zones. I'd imagine that going somewhere new afterwards allows you to be whoever you now are on your own terms, whereas going home means continually experiencing the pain of no longer fitting in to the life and loving relationship that you'd had before, with no relief in sight.
Could also be the difference between having a plan with long term goals that leads you to a new city vs not knowing what to do next and defaulting to just going back home. Maybe it's not that home is bad, but the fact you ended up there.
Changed maybe but not a whole new person. And its not binary - my experiences will different to yours even if we were in the exact same situations. After two tours I am not so different that I cannot interface with friends or family as I did before. I think the misconception of this statement does more harm then good and shows a rather negative interpretation of combat veterans.
I've heard similar comments from civilians, that dealing with extreme situations overseas isn't as stressful as dealing with folks when you go back home.
I don't know whether home folks are actually the problem or it's just delayed response. I think it was T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia) who said that reactions to the trauma of war continue to bubble up long afterwards. Maybe that is suppressed for as long as you stay "in the field."
Sounds like what makes military service a good path is that 1. enlisting puts you in a better place than the previous day or 2. the time in the service enables a step up of some kind afterwards.
I have no idea.
Strangely the most common thread seems to be the ones who off themselves went back home after getting out.
Almost everyone I know who got out and stayed away from home is doing ok. Almost everyone I know who got out and went back home is a wreck.
Some had TBI exposures, some didn't.