In the current draft, we merely have a note in [namespace.udecl] p4, which says

[Note 2: Since destructors do not have names, a using-declaration cannot refer to a destructor for a base class. — end note]

However, a destructor is similar to a constructor in most respects. A constructor does not have a name as per [class.ctor.general] p1 but it can be referred to by a using-declaration. Again, a constructor can be found, as per [class.qual] p1, a destructor can also be found as per [basic.lookup.qual.general] p4. We explicitly say a using-declaration can name a constructor but we do not have a formal rule that specifies a using-declaration cannot refer to a destructor. We expect that there is a formal rule in [namespace.udecl] as like:

the unqualified-id in a using-declarator shall not denote a destructor.