Nope. "Natural-born" refers to a citizen at birth.
There are only two categories of US citizens, natural-born and naturalized. A citizen who has not been naturalized is by definition natural-born.
If this is inaccurate, I'd appreciate someone referencing something in statute law or court decisions showing otherwise. Somebody's opinion doesn't count.
Then I ask you why did they 1898 Supreme Court state that Wong was a 'native born citizen' and not use the term 'natural born citizen' as it is written in the U.S. Constitution.
What's the difference between the two? And if you say they are one in the same cite your source - anyone?
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=169&page=649