I'm getting different stories each time you tell it. In the first story you were moving out. In the most recent story, you were living in your on-campus apartment. You were required to pay for damage to a wall in the on-campus apartment you had leased. That much we've established regardless of how the story changes.
Was this even an AI? If there is more than usual wear and tear on a property, the person moving out will be responsible for repairs. Owing the university money is not an AI. Criminal damage to property would be an IA (if I threw something and dented the wall, I might owe for the repair). Putting nails in the wall to hang pictures might generate a repair bill but it is unlikely to be an IA.
I think that the current explanation is too long. I'd leave out the penultimate sentence. I'd suggest
"while moving out of my on-campus apartment., I damaged a wall. I accepted full responsibility and agreed to cover the cost of repairs. Months later, while requesting my transcript, I discovered an outstanding disciplinary hold. I promptly contacted the Office of Student Conduct, arranged payment, and resolved the balance in full within two weeks. I have since made it a practice to confirm closure on all matters in which I am involved."
Don't exhaust your audience. I cut your explanation from 5 lines to 3 without losing the meat which was that you damaged university property, were required to pay for the damages, did so after a hold was placed on your account and now it's all good. The friends fooling around is not relevant to the story.
