A Grounded Navy Pilot Wants Out

Lt. Cmdr. Douglas B. Duke was literally born into the military, at Ft. Belvoir, Va., the son of an Army colonel.

He was raised an Army brat. Two older brothers were graduated from West Point and Annapolis. Duke’s uncle is also a graduate of the Naval Academy, and a cousin earned his degree from the Air Force Academy.

So it was natural for Duke to seek a career in the military. He too was schooled at the Naval Academy, where he graduated No. 1 in his class of 832 midshipmen. He was known there as the “4.0 Duker,” an academic achiever who never earned less than an A.

“Douglas is destined to accomplish great things,” read a citation in the 1976 “Lucky Bag,” his Annapolis yearbook. “Lean and tall, our star has changed from the paragon of American boyhood to the beloved Duker . . . . Perchance there was something at which Doug did not excel. But alas we never discovered it.”

He has devoted 15 years to the Navy--almost half his life--attaining the rank of lieutenant commander and fervently pursuing the coveted status of a Navy fighter pilot.

But that was where Duke, now 32, at last did not excel. He has been grounded. His career went into a tailspin, a victim of the intense competition of the Top Gun environment. And now he has been ordered to report Nov. 30 for non-flight duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the war-torn Persian Gulf region.

But he is resisting the assignment to the Ranger, and he has taken the unusual step of asking a federal judge in San Diego to order the Navy to immediately grant him an honorable discharge. Duke is convinced that the Navy has breached its contract with him to make him a fighter pilot.

“He is a bachelor,” said his attorney, Ronald C. Stout. “He has no commitments. He has no other job offers. His whole life has been military.

“In a normal situation, he’d love to go.”

Stout, a former military judicial officer who said he has handled hundreds of legal matters for members of the military, saw precious little precedent for using the breach-of-contract theory in the Duke case.

“There’s not too many attorneys in the United States who even have a clue how to do this,” he said. “Me neither, really.”

He compared it to situations where today’s recruits answer high-pressure ads and join the service, expecting to be turned into instant electrical engineers or submarine commanders.

“A young man signs up for the Navy, gets to boot camp and finds out that too many people are enrolled in the nuclear submarine school and he can’t get in,” Stout said.

“If the military won’t then let him out, his only remedy is federal court. So you go into federal court on the breach-of-contract theory.”

But Stout conceded that taking a military problem to federal court does not automatically guarantee success.

“Federal judges attempt to avoid making these kinds of decisions as a general rule,” he said. “They feel they then become a decision maker for the military and they feel that’s the military province.”

In Duke’s case, the Navy considers itself on solid ground. In response to the lawsuit, the U.S. attorney’s office has been quick to point out that when Duke was accepted into flight school, he agreed to serve the additional five years, regardless of whether he became a fighter pilot.

“It really isn’t a contract in the ordinary sense of that term,” said Dennis E. LeClere, the assistant U.S. attorney who is representing the Navy. “The agreement is not quid pro quo. He signed up to fly in order to get that training. He agreed to serve the five years.”

But Duke alleges the Navy did not act in good faith in living up to its end of the agreement because it did not provide him enough fighter pilot experience so he could succeed.

“We’re talking good-faith dealings,” Stout said. “They didn’t give him the opportunity to complete his end of the bargain. So his obligation does not arise.”

Therefore, Duke contends, he should not have to complete his current tour of duty, due to end in March of 1989, since he was grounded last year from the cockpit of the F-14 fighter jet.

In essence, Lt. Cmdr. Douglas B. Duke, a man born and bred into the military, now claims he is being unlawfully held in the custody of the U.S. Navy.

Duke declined to be interviewed, preferring instead to let his attorney speak on his behalf. Still showing his Navy colors despite his current problems, Duke cited strict military regulations that require a commanding officer’s approval before he could talk to the press.

But in a letter he wrote last year, pleading to the Naval Aviator Evaluation Board for one more chance to earn his fighter pilot wings, he unleashed his passions:

“Gen. Chuck Yeager stated that fighter pilots were made not born, and the best fighter pilot is the one with the most experience. I firmly believe his words.

“I ask only for the opportunity that should be extended to every new aviator--the chance to be the best. I won’t disappoint you.”

The case of Duke versus the Navy has three main points.

- How accomplished was Duke in the pilot’s seat?

“Lt. Duke is one of the most impressive young officers I have ever been associated with,” wrote S.O. Schmitt, a commanding officer from Duke’s days at naval flight school in Pensacola, Fla. “He is a proven winner who succeeds in all endeavors. He has unlimited potential and would become an outstanding naval aviator.”

But J.P. Kilkenny, a commanding officer at the Miramar Naval Air Station here, saw things differently when he recommended Duke be grounded last year. Kilkenny observed that after numerous practice landings aboard carriers at sea, “the unanimous opinion was that little consistent improvement had been demonstrated. Under conditions of adverse weather, pitching deck or an aircraft emergency, Lt. Cmdr. Duke would be a high risk for a landing mishap.”

Didn’t Make the Grade

LeClere said simply that “the facts in the case” reflect Duke’s below-par performance.

“Obviously, I’ve never seen him or flown with him,” LeClere said. “But the facts as we received them from the Navy suggest exactly that.”

- Did the Navy renege on its “contract” with Duke by not providing him a real chance to earn his fighter-pilot wings?

Duke maintains that even though he was given numerous practice landings, he also was required to perform his regular administrative duties as a lieutenant commander. He said he often was unable to devote his full concentration on flying, a luxury considered crucial to flying fighter jets.

“As a result of being removed from flight status, my promotional opportunities and career options with the Navy have been destroyed,” he told an aviator review board.

However, the U.S. attorney’s office noted that Duke was provided with numerous test landings and review evaluations.

“Duke has had sufficient opportunity to blossom and demonstrate his true potential,” Kilkenny told the board.

LeClere added: “It evolves solely from his inability to land the aircraft safely on the moving deck of an aircraft carrier at sea.”

- Is Duke using the lawsuit to avoid duty in the Persian Gulf area, particularly since his lawsuit was filed just weeks before he is to board the Ranger?

Duke was grounded in July, 1986. A few months later, in September, he was informed that he would receive orders in October, 1987, to report to the Ranger for duty. Those orders take effect Nov. 30.

LeClere, in a brief filed in federal court, said it was clear to the government that the only “irreparable harm” Duke could show in his case was that he was being sent to sea duty aboard the Ranger rather than being allowed to fly again.

“It is difficult to see how a sailor’s assignment to sea duty can constitute irreparable harm,” LeClere argued. “He has been in the Navy for 15 years. Obviously, going to sea is the essence of Navy life.”

Stout vehemently denied that his client, who filed suit on Sept. 30, was trying to avoid service in the war zone. “If they’d let him go ahead and become a fighter pilot, he’d love that,” Stout said. “He’d grab it in a second. End of case. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.”

Duke’s future now hangs with U.S. District Judge Earl B. Gilliam, who has scheduled a hearing on the case for Wednesday. The judge will decide whether Duke has exhausted all of his administrative appeals in the Navy before allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

Timing is crucial. Duke is due aboard the Ranger in just a few weeks. And Stout does not want his client away at sea if the case is still open-ended, either before the federal court or in the Navy appeals process.

High Achiever

The appeals already have covered much of the last two years.

Duke joined the Navy in 1972. He graduated from Annapolis four years later and attended naval flight officer school in Pensacola from 1977 to 1978. He was later ordered to a training squadron here at Miramar.

For several years he underwent ground and air training before being allowed to test-land jets on a carrier. Almost from the start, he found the pressure intense to succeed and hold up his end of a military family. But the first evaluations were disheartening after he made 18 “touch-and-go” carrier landings at sea in August, 1985.

“His performance was poor,” his commanders said in their evaluation to the Navy board. “He suffered from inconsistent starts, poor pattern work and drifting during night carrier landing attempts.”

He was tested on 13 more practice landings. The Navy found little improvement. Three weeks later, he was tested again. And again, little improvement seen by his superiors.

In October of that year, the Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board ruled that Duke “has a history of carrier-landing difficulty.”

“Duke is highly susceptible to pressures both real and self-imposed,” the board said. “An admitted perfectionist and achievement-oriented individual, he is very sensitive to the opinions and perceptions of his peers and superiors. This self-imposed and actual pressure is believed to be a major factor in his poor performance.”

The board recommended he be relieved of all duties so he could concentrate solely on his flight practice. Then, 29 more landing tests were ordered at sea. Still, the Navy noticed little change. He was grounded and, in January of this year, he was redesignated a non-flying general aviation officer.

But Duke maintained that he was provided poor training, given limited flying time and inadequate experience.

He said that even though he was supposed to be relieved of his administrative duties, his commander still expected him to perform those chores. He said he was reluctant to delegate responsibilities. He said he was too often distracted from attending solely to improving his flight performance.

In addition, he was under extra pressure to succeed because he felt he was considered a “retread” by the other, younger pilots who had already passed the rigorous training.

“The problem here is not a lack of aviation skill but a denial of opportunity to develop my flying skills,” he told the aviator evaluation board. “I can be the best fighter pilot in tactical aviation. I ask only for your support in affording me a real chance for success.”

But the Navy said he has had his share of chances. And the Navy expects him to live up to his five-year reenlistment.

“In short,” LeClere told Judge Gilliam, “Duke is not being held in jail, deprived of income or stigmatized by firing. He is being asked to maintain the status quo.”

But status quo for Duke--his life in the Navy--is ending, according to his lawyer. The “Duker,” who once could not fail, has washed up.

“He figures his career is finished, thrown into an office job and his career ruined,” Stout said. “When you’re sidelined as a pilot, you’re finished.”