EISENHAUER, J.

John D. Johnson appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for judicial review following the Iowa Board of Parole's failure to grant a parole in September 2000. Johnson also named the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC) as a respondent, claiming that the DOC failed to provide the Board with information relevant to his parole. We review the district court's judgment entered on judicial review of an agency action for correction of errors of law. PanDa Eng'g v. Engineering Land Surveying Examining Bd., 621 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa 2001).

Johnson is currently serving three consecutive ten-year sentences for his 1990 convictions of third-degree sexual abuse. Evidence at trial indicated Johnson had engaged in a sexual relationship with a seventh-grade girl. The presentence investigative report further indicated that Johnson had sexually abused his two daughters between the ages of nine and sixteen. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 901.9 (1989), the sentencing judge "strongly" recommended to the Board that Johnson serve the entire sentence without release on parole.

Beginning in 1994, the Board annually reviewed Johnson's case to evaluate his eligibility for work release or parole. The district court's denial of his petition for judicial review stemming from the Board's denial of parole in September 1999 was affirmed by this court in Johnson v. Department of Corrections, 635 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001).

Johnson first contends the DOC violated a duty to provide information to the Board of Parole pursuant to section 906.6 (1999), which states:

All persons employed in a correctional institution shall grant to the members of the board of parole, or its properly accredited representatives, access at all reasonable times to any person over whom the board has jurisdiction, shall provide for the board or its representatives facilities for communicating with and observing the person, and shall furnish to the board reports the board requires concerning the conduct and character of any person in their custody and any other facts deemed by the board pertinent in determining whether the person shall be released on parole or work release.

Johnson contends that when read in conjunction with section 906.5(3), section 906.6 mandates the DOC provide the Board of Parole with annual reports regarding a person's conduct, work, and attitude in prison. Because the DOC did not provide this information to the Board of Parole, Johnson contends the DOC's violation of section 906.6 denied him a fair and "individualized" parole consideration.

We conclude section 906.6 only requires the DOC to provide the Board of Parole with information requested by the Board. Because the DOC is not obligated to create such annual reports, the DOC has not violated section 906.6.

Johnson also contends the Board did not apply all the criteria set forth in section 906.5(3) when considering his parole. Section 906.5(3) states:

At the time of a review conducted under this section, the board shall consider all pertinent information regarding the person, including the circumstances of the person's offense, any presentence report which is available, the previous social history and criminal record of the person, the person's conduct, work, and attitude in prison, and the reports of physical and mental examinations that have been made.

Iowa Administrative Code r. 205-8.10 also lists factors the Board may consider in the parole or work release decision.

In denying Johnson's application for parole, the Board stated, "In view of the seriousness of the crime for which you were convicted, the Board believes that a parole at this time would not be in the best interest of society." Johnson complains that the Board's decision to deny him parole based solely on the type of offense he committed violates the requirement that the Board consider all pertinent information. While section 906.5(3) requires the Board to consider all pertinent information regarding a person, section 906.4 provides that the Board shall release a person "when in its opinion there is a reasonable probability that the person can be released without detriment to the community or to the person." Based on the seriousness of Johnson's offense, the Board concluded he could not be released without detriment to society. The Board's decision denying Johnson parole was reasonable and properly within its discretion as provided in section 906.4.

Finally, Johnson contends the Board of Parole and the DOC did not comply with procedural due process. His argument is based on his perceived failures of the Board and the DOC outlined above. His claim has no merit.

AFFIRMED.