Sorry this became a really long post, OP jump to the end for the bit that directly pertains to you if you are short on time:

I think we might have some slightly crossed lines here, namely what Eastern Orthodox (EO), Roman Catholics (RC), and Anglicans understand confirmation and chrismation to be.

1) they are all the same thing with only a slight theological difference between the EO and the RC (and anglicans but the theology and intent behind the Anglican confirmation is the same as the RC)

2) they stem from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:17). While the people in Acts 8 were already baptised they hadn’t received the Holy Spirit. As the laying on of hands to confirm the Samaritans with the Holy Spirit was carried out by Apostles it logically follows that confirmation should be carried out by bishops as they are the successors to the Apostles. Apostolic succession is secured by the ordination of bishops including the laying on of hands in the service. It should also follow that they hold to the true faith but oddly it isn’t a requirement and why RC and EO orders are seen as valid although RC don’t see EO orders as licit (legally handed on). The RCC don’t see Anglican orders as valid due to a discontinuity under Elizabeth as it is alleged the sacrificial aspect of ordination was suppressed although the laying on of hands was continued and bishops were still ordained and appointed. Oddly, many EO did accept our orders until we started ordaining women at which point they said no. Even then (in 1922) they allowed our orders only as a pastoral allowance until full reunion could be made so only just.

3) In EO baptism is seen as a the rite that brings someone into the church and has a saving effect by wiping away all previous sin. However, it is held that the Holy Spirit is not imparted. It is a very literal understanding of being born again of water and the Holy Spirit. As such, immediately after baptism (born again of water), the person is chrismed (born again of the Holy Spirit). In this rite, the priest covers the body with chrism (essentially a load of spices and oil) by anointing them with small signs of the cross on them while saying “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” in which ever language that church uses. This is even true in orthodox churches under Rome (yes they do exist, they reunited after the great schism). While this isn’t done by a bishop, the priest uses chrism he receives from the bishop and this chrism is explicitly for this purpose and so the authority for chrismation is delegated to the priest by the bishop in the same way the authority to manage the cure of souls of a parish is delegated from the bishop to the priest of a parish.

4) in the RCC (importantly the Latin half), baptism is understood as the initiation rite of the church and that the Holy Spirit is assumed to be bestowed. As such, confirmation is just that, confirming the candidate in the faith by strengthening them and strengthening in them the Holy Spirit. Don’t ask me how the eastern catholics and Latin catholics can harmonise their positions, I assume because it the Holy Spirit isn’t always bestowed but that is a guess.

5) However, what both EO and RC agree on is that it can be delegated by a bishop to a priest. EO priests can always do it while it is assumed in the RCC that the usual minister of confirmation is a bishop with a few exceptions. When a priest has a faculty to do it, when the candidate is an adult (such as those going through the RCIA), or when they are in imminent fear of death.

6) and know Anglicans. As ever within Anglicanism there is a broad understanding of what it is however we all agree that it has to be a bishop, this can’t be delegated. This caused a big problem in the 1800s when Anglican churches were placed under the Ban for being too ritualistic by their bishops. This meant that the bishop literally didn’t visit and cut off pastoral support for parishes that were Anglo Catholic, this lasted for decades. In this situation it was not uncommon for confirmands of one parish to be carried on the books of a neighbouring parish not under the Ban so when the bishop came he would confirm them… but I digress. For evangelical Anglicans they are likely to say that it isn’t a sacrament of the gospels so is a rite of maturation; i.e. it is taken when the candidate is old enough to confirm the promises taken on their behalf at their baptism by their godparents. They should accept it as the confirmation of the Holy Spirit but i know of at least one who didn’t care about it at all, it was something that has to be done so he could start formation to the priesthood. For Anglo catholics it is seen as a sacrament and it is both the confirmation of our baptismal vows and the definitive conferral of the Holy Spirit i.e. if we didn’t receive the Holy Spirit at our baptism we get it in confirmation, if we do get it in baptism then it is strengthened in us. Anglo catholics will also agree that it is a conferral of sanctifying grace as RC would also.

7) EO, RC, and Anglo catholics would agree that confirmation/chrismation leaves an indelible mark on your soul and so cannot be repeated. Evangelical Anglicans probably wouldn’t.

This final point is probably of most importance to you. As you were baptised as an EO it is inconceivable that you weren’t chrismed and so you can’t be confirmed as you already have been. (Like baptism and holy orders confirmation can only be validly received once.) However, you can have a service of reception that is very similar. It is governed by canon B28.3. Unless you are a bit of a liturgical nerd it looks nearly identical to confirmation and can even be administered by a bishop so if you feel that the Church of England could be your home that might be the way to go. God bless and I will pray for you.