A White House position paper on Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork "seriously distorts" Bork's record on the federal appeals court here, misstates his views and contains other "major inaccuracies" in an attempt to depict Bork as a moderate, according to a review released yesterday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.).

The response disputes the administration's characterization of Bork, contained in a briefing book distributed by the White House last month, as a "mainstream" jurist who, in succeeding retired Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., would not alter the balance on the high court. {Excerpts on Page A23.}

"The picture painted by the White House is inaccurate and incomplete," said the response, prepared by two Judiciary Committee consultants, Jeffrey Peck and Duke University law Prof. Christopher Schroeder. "Among the omissions are clear examples of Judge Bork's advocacy and implementation of conservative activism, which demonstrate that he is not the apostle of judicial restraint and moderation described in the White House position paper."

Bork's addition to the high court, they wrote, "would cement a five-vote majority for undoing much of the social progress of the last three decades."

Justice Department spokesman Terry H. Eastland, commenting on the review's characterization of Bork, said, "it's nonsense to say that he's a judicial activist. His career as a judge has been spent in the service of defining and applying neutral principles of law, whatever the political outcome might be."

In addition, Eastland said, "It's not the briefing book that's been nominated, it's Judge Bork. Whatever anyone may wish to say about whatever various people have said about Judge Bork, it is he whose record and whose testimony during the hearings will be relevant during the confirmation process."

The two documents offer a preview of the debate on Bork when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins two weeks of hearings on the nomination Sept. 15.

Although Biden did not explicitly endorse the consultants' report, it was approved by First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, Washington lawyer Clark Clifford, Duke University law Prof. Walter Dellinger and Harvard Law School Prof. Laurence Tribe, who have been advising Biden.

The response criticizes as "uninformative" and "distorted" White House statistics, cited often by President Reagan and other administration officials, showing that Bork, in five years on the appeals court, has never had one of his more than 100 majority opinions reversed by the high court. In fact, the response states, the court has not yet reviewed any Bork majority opinions.

In addition, the response said, the White House statistics "ignore" the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Bork's position in a 1986 sexual harassment case.

"In a factually inaccurate and misleading description," the response said, "the White House position paper claims that the Supreme Court 'adopted positions similar to those of Judge Bork' " in the case, which involved a bank teller who claimed she had sexual relations with a supervisor who threatened to fire her if she did not comply with his demands.

Bork dissented from the full appeals court's decision not to review the case, saying that the bank should not be held liable if the teller's relations with the supervisor were "voluntary." The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, "flatly rejected" Bork's view, the response said.

The response also criticizes the administration's attempt to equate Bork's views with those of Powell, saying that it glosses over "many fundamental differences" between the two judges. Moreover, the response said, Bork's "judicial record -- far from supporting the position paper's assertions of restraint -- is replete with examples of an activist approach" in which Bork has been willing to ignore liberal precedents.

It quotes, for example, from a 1984 case involving a homosexual sailor in which four of Bork's colleagues accused him of conducting "a general spring cleaning of constitutional law," adding, "Judicial restraint begins at home."

Although the White House paper asserts that Bork "has never wavered in his consistent and principled protection of civil rights," the response states that "Bork's extensive record shows that he has opposed virtually every major civil rights advance on which he has taken a position."

Likewise, the position paper says that Bork's rulings "suggest a strong hostility to any form of government censorship and that "he would be a powerful ally of First Amendment values on the Supreme Court." The response asserts that Bork "would narrow many well-established First Amendment protections," citing his suggestions that First Amendment protections apply only to speech on political issues and his criticisms of some Supreme Court cases on press rights.