No purpose appears to be served by the use of the "and" part of the "and/or" in this case. Using "or" alone would have been unambiguously interpreted in the "inclusive-or" meaning because any attempt to interpret "or" in an "exclusive-or" meaning would yield the absurdity of excluding those who were arrested and then convicted. And a review of the text of 14 CFR finds "or" used exclusively in the inclusive-or sense.
According to citations in the Wikiepedia article on "and/or" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or ) "Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement." The Florida Supreme Court "has held that use of and/or results in a nullity." The article Wikipedia contains some wonderful skewering of the use of "and/or" in legal documents. (While the form uses "and/or" I'm guessing it wont be found anywhere in the text of 14 CFR.)
Also, the word "arrest" does not seem toappear anywhere in section 61.15 or Part 67. I'm not sure how any form, such as 8500, can be considered regulatory (in fact it lists the statutes and regulations that allegedly allow its questions.) Unless form designers get to make up any information request they like, I would think addition of "arrest" in 2008 to that form should have been preceded by a change in the regulations. It would not be the first time an agency over-stepped its authority during changes in its procedures and it took a few years for it to be contested and corrected.
